











.*'% 








AN ESSAY 

ON THE 

PLAN OF SALTATION. 

IN WHICH THE SEVERAL SOURCES 6f 

EVIDENCE 

AUB EXAMINED? AND APPLIED TO THE INTERESTING DOCTRINE OF 

EEDEMPTION, 

IN ITS RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENl? 
AND MORAL ATTRIBUTES 

OF THE 



DEITY. 



r.'^ 



BY ASA SHINN, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. 

<* Truth never was indebted to a lie" — Young. 

*< Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." 
John viii. 32. 

" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive^ 
ftess of sins, according to the riches of his grace." — Eph, i. 7. 



BALTIMORE: 
PUBLISHED BY NEAL, WILLS AND COLE. 

Benjamin Edes, printer, 

4813, 




DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, s«. 

Be it remembered, that on this fourteenth day of 
September, in the thirty-eighth year of the Indepen- 
dence of the United States of America, Asa Shinn of 
said district, hath deposited in this office, the title of a 
book, the right whereof he claims ad author, in the words and fi- 
gures following, to wit: 

"x\n Essay on the Plan of Salvation, in which the several sources 
of Evidence are examined, and applied to the interesting doctrine 
of Redemption, in its relation to the government and moral attri- 
butes of the Deity. By Asa Shinn, minister of the gospel." 
"Truth never was indebted to a lie." — Young. 
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.*' 
John viii. 32. 

"In whom we hare redemption through his blood, the forgive- 
ness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." — Eph. i. 7, 

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, 
entitled, " an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing 
the copies of maps, charts, and books to the authors and proprie- 
tors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also 
to the act entitled, " an act supplementary to the act entitled, " an 
act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of 
maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such 
copies during the times therein mentioned," and extending the ben- 
efits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching histo- 
rical and other prints. 

PHILIP MOORE, 
CUrk of the District of Maryland. 



PREFACE. 



THE following Essay was written, and is now offered to the 
public, from a full and deliberate conviction that truth, rightly 
understood and believed, tends to the general and permanent hap- 
piness of mankind; — that the doctrines therein contained are true; 
— and that they are truths in which we are all particularly inter- 
ested, and which cannot be too attentively examined, or too gener- 
ally understood. If either of these positions be erroneous, it must 
be confessed that error has had an influence in giving birth to the 
present publication. But admitting them to be correct, they are 
deemed sufficient to furnish justifiable motives for publishing this 
book, nothwithstanding its defects, or the obscurity of its author. 

The general design of the Essay, as signified by the title, is to 
point out and ascertain, with some tolerable degree of accuracy, 
the rules of evidence by which alone the human mind can be suc- 
cessful iu the search of truth; — in order especially, to apply those 
rules, or to use them with attentive regularity, in the investigation 
of the important and great principles of Christianity, concerning 
the redemption of mankind, and the general plan of saving them 
from sin and misery, by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is entitled an 
Essay on the Plan of Salvation, because the design of it was, not 
to investigate precisely and exclusively, the doctrine of the atone- 
ment, but to view that interesting doctrine in its connexion with 
the general plan of restoring fallen creatures, and in its relation 
to the moral attributes and government of the great Creator. 
The reader will find that one whole chapter was written before 
the subject of atonement was introduced; and that chapter may be 
considered, by some, to be totally foreign from the plan of salva- 
tion, and to contain matter which cannot, with propriety, be in- 
cluded under such a title. It may be necessary, for the sake of 
such readers, to obviate the objection in this place, lest an unhappy 
prepossession should cause them to stumble at the very threshold, 
and to cast the book by with inditterence, before they come to tha 
main subject to which their attention is solicited. 

It must be acknowledged by every reflecting mind, that a clear 
view of the method by which truth is to be discovered and ascer- 
tained, is of great advantage in the pursuit of it; and that confusion 
in our conceptions of the proper grounds of credence, is a very gene- 
ral and fatal source of error. A man is in little danger of taking his 
enemy for his friend, or his friend for his enemy, who has a clear 
and steady conception of the constituent principles of friendship 
and of enmity; because he can apply those principles to each parti- 
cular case, without much danger of being mistaken; but he who is 
at no pains to regulate his view of this subject, is liable to take 



PREFACE. 

that for a proof of friendship which is a proof of the contrary, 
and thus to expose himself to the insidious arts of intrigue and 
deception. In like manner, while we remain unacquainted with 
the rules of evidence, or have but an indistinct and obscure view 
of them, we are liable to take that for a sign of truth which is a 
giga of falsehood, and to wander in the wilderness ef delusion, 
till our adherence to sophistical evidence will become habitual; 
and then surely we shall be in a fair way to take bitter for sweety 
and sweet for bitter; — darkness for lights and light for darkness, 

\i cannot therefore be justly considered a matter of indifterence,' 
much less of censure, that in an Essay upon the great doctrines of 
religion and morality, on which our present and eternal happiness 
depends, an attempt should iirst be made to distinguish between 
true and false evidence: for how can truth be discovered or prov- 
ed, but by the use of sound and genuine rules of proof, and by 
carefully guarding against those which are false and delusive? 
And how can this be done, if we be at no pains to distinguish the 
one from the other? 

Nor can it be justly said, that such an examination of evidence 
"belongs not to the plan of salvation: for is it not God's method of 
saving sinners, to bestow his spiritual blessings upon them in con- 
sequence of i\\^\r embracing the truth? And how can truth be dis- 
covered or believed, but by means of that evidence which distin- 
guishes it from falsehood? All men will agree surely, that truth 
cannot be embraced without being distinguished from falsehood: 
and how can this be done, if we are indifferent to the method by 
which they are to be distinguished? As the plan of saving sinners 
Implies, therefore, our understanding, believing and obeying the 
truth; and as truth cannot be understood, believed, nor consequent- 
ly obeyed, but by means of proper evidence, this first chapter, 
upon the nature and rules of evidence; and the distinction between 
the sound and the unsound, properly belongs to an Essay on the 
plan of Ji^alvation. 

It is true, that in illustrating this subject, notice has been taken 
of our intellectual or judging faculties, and some may perhaps ob- 
ject, that a disposition has been manifested to wander too far into 
the regions of philosophy; but when we consider that some philo- 
sophers have done more to involve the evidence of truth in confu- 
sion and obscurity, than almost any other men, it can hardly be 
thought improper to follow them in their ingenious speculations, 
so far at least, as to detect the stratagems, by which they have 
laboured to conceal the evidence of religious truth, and of moral 
obligation, from the human mind. Infidelity, it is well known, 
affects to come forth under the sanction of philosophy: It eagerly 
embraces the ingenious theories of some acute metaphysicians, ag 
the ground of its opposition to Christianity; therefore we cannot 
disarm our unbelieving opponents, without attacking the hypothe- 
ses of that science^ falsely so called^ on which they take their stand, 
and by mean^ of which they have imposed upon the understand- 
ings of the unwary, have made a plausible defence against the 
dictates of conscience and reason, and have been but too suece»§|u| 
ja the establishment of a pernicious scepticism. 



PREFACE. 

But it is vain to hope, that all the objections can be obviated in 
A preface, which will be apt to occur agaiust the doctrines of this 
Essay; for it is extremely probable, not to say morally certain, that 
there will be some hundreds. And for this plain reason, that the 
author, from the beginning to the end, has been governed by a con- 
viction that he ought to follow evidence wherever it should lead, 
without ever suppressing or departing from any part of it, through 
the fear of deviating from the sentiments of any man, or any num- 
ber of men in the world. Hence one part of the subject may differ 
from one sentiment, long sanctioned by authority; another part 
from another; and upon the whole, every denomination of chris- 
tiaus may peradventure find something that will be esteemed ob- 
jectionable. 

Indeed, there is reason to presume that some who entirely ap- 
prove the leading doctrines here advanced, and whose friendship 
the writer of these pages has long had the happiness to enjoy, 
will be obstructed in their progress through the Essay, by some 
considerable objections. Without attempting to predict what par- 
ticular points will be considered erroneous, it may suffice to notice 
objections that are more general. These may perhaps be the fol- 
lowing: (1.) That the subject is treated in a manner too abstruse 
and metaphysical, and (2.) that the peculiar boldness and novelty 
of several parts of it, are of a suspicious character, and indicate 
a strong presumption, that some very serious errors have been 
adopted. 

In answering the first, it may be sufficient to say, that great 
eare and pains were used to make the subject as simple and intel- 
ligible as its nature would possibly admit of; and though some 
things have been introduced that are abstruse in their nature, be- 
cause it was impossible otherwise to do any justice to the subject, 
yet it is presumed, there are few things introduced, but such as 
may be understood by common minds, provided their method of 
reading and understanding subjects be that of attention and dili- 
gent thinking. And I hope no person w ould request a man to 
write a book that may be understood without thinkiug. Must it 
not be a very superficial and frivolous performance, that can be 
comprehended by a careless inattentive glance, that is hardly suf- 
ficient to keep the reader from falling into a profound sleep? And 
however intelligible, conclusive, or important a treatise may be, it 
will contain nothing clear, convincing or interesting, to an wn- 
thinking mind: because his intellectual supineness renders him 
incapable of entering into a subject, or of properly relishing any 
truths it may contain. The discourses of our Saviour and his 
apostles are remarkably simple and perspicuous; yet the man who 
presumes he has a right understanding of them, without close and 
habitual meditation, is in a greater error, perhaps, than those of 
whom he is disposed to complain. 

As to the second objection, the candid and friendly reader is 
assured, that great solicitude occupied the mind of the writer, 
through the whole of this Essay, to guard against error: if the 
reader will devote an equal degree of attention to discover and 
point out erroneous opinions, that was employed to avoid them, he 
will doubtless be entitled to a fair hearing; and whatever aid his 



PREFACE. 

f/iendly strictures may afford, will be received with gratitude. — 
But as to those persons, if any such there be, who upon the first 
careless glance are entirely prepared, aud think themselves fully 
qualified, to fix the charge of heresy upon a publication, their 
sovereign and masterly decision, I think, is beneath the attention 
of every reflecting mind. Their great and capable minds, it 
would seem, are under no necessity to submit to the drudgery of 
close and laborious thinking, in order to distinguish truth from 
falsehood; but are at once prepared, with intuitive infallibility, to 
judge of every book and of every subject, without the pains of ex^ 
aniination, or even almost without reading or hearing them. — 
What is the evidence on which they decide? Such as the follow- 
ing: the thing is a novelty: — 1 never heard it before: — my father 
never believed it: — It is not believed by our party:^-! am sure it is 
false. — Hoping the reader will pardon me for supposing it possi- 
ble, that there may be persons of this sort in the world, 1 drop the 
present allusion, and proceed to notice a few other particulars. 

It is not impossible, that some persons, into whose hands this 
book may chance to fall, will be grievously offended, because so 
little deference appears to be given to creeds, established by the 
authority of divines, or to the opinions of the learned; especially 
tothoseof philosophers and doctors of law and divinity. They 
may perhaps think this performance, however destitute of the 
grace of novelty in other particulars, affords a new species of im-^ 
pudence and self-sufficiency. 

It is indeed a very pleasing reflection to an enlightened mind, 
that there are many men of learning in the world; — men who have 
a complete knowledge of the different languages, as also of sci- 
ence in general; — it would be a blessing if their number was in- 
creased ten fold;— and every friend to human improvement must 
consider it desirable to be possessed of their advantages: — but 
though a degree of deference is due to their authority, yel if any 
one should conclude that authority alone is a sufficient ground for 
all our opinions, it might not be improper to propose to him a few 
plain queries. 

1. Are divines and philosophers the only men to whom God has 
given the right to think and judge for themselves.^ 2. Must all 
persons who have been unhappily deprived of their advantages, 
either hold their peace, or frame all their opinions aceording to 
the exact model furnished by their learned superiors, however the 
clearest evidence may seem to lead to a contrary conclusion? 3. 
Is a man incapable of reasoning or judging correctly, because he 
is not a critic in foreign languages, or has not become master of 
astronomy or navigation.^* 4. If any person were charged with hav- 
ing no independence, — of framing all his opinions according to the 
fashion or authority of great men, without having any opinion of 
his own, — would he not consider it a reproach, and be disposed to 
repel the charge.^ 5. Is it not very inconsistent then, for any per- 
son to complain of another, for using that freedom of thought and 
independence, the want of which cannot be imputed to himself, 
without being received as a reproach, or even as an insult.^ 

The reader, it is hoped, bearing these queries in mind, will pe- 
ruse the following sheets with some indulgence, and will not b^ 



PREFACE. 

hasty in attributing that to a want of respect for great men, which 
originated only from a desire to avoid the unreasonable preposses- 
sions of fashion and authority. 

As to the manner, or execution of this work, it is not to be 
doubted that the judicious reader will meet with many deftciencies; 
some from errors of the press, some from the inability of tlie au- 
thor, and others from the peculiar disadvantages under which he 
laboured. A candid and liberal indulgence is solicited; and if any 
harsh or uncharitable expressions have been permitted to pass, it 
is hoped, that, being imputed to inadvertency, more than malevo- 
lence, by impartial and generous minds, they will be forgiven. 

This book may be thought by some to copy too much after the 
modes of expression used by moralists, philosophers, or even So-- 
einians; and though the sentiments may be true, yet the expres- 
sions may be thought not sufficiently evangelical. Instance, the 
frequent use of the words virtue, rectitude, morality, &c. 

This has been done for the sake of precision and perspicuity; 
Those words, though sometimes limited to external conduct only, 
are frequently used to signify the whole of christian righteousness^ 
obedience and holiness. Does not the law of God enjoin perfect holi* 
ness? And is it not truly denominated the moral law? Then does 
not the word morality, comprehend the whole of that law which 
enjoins the perfect love of God, and of all mankind.^ And ivhy 
should christians, or men of reason, dispute about words, and be 
oifended at each other for particular modes of expression? To re- 
ject truth on this account, is like a person refusing to partake of 
the common sustenance of life, because it is not served up in tbat 
kind of table furniture which is most agreeable to his fancy. 

And suppose there should be a considerable deficiency of style, 
or even a few serious errors of opinion, if the doctrines are true in 
the general, and worthy of all acceptation, they surely ought not 
to be rejected with disgust or indifference, because a few errors es- 
caped attention, and unhappily found their way into this publica- 
tion. To reject a treatise in this way, is to act like those persons 
who reject or despise a whole religious community as hypocrites, 
because a few of its members have been found to be deceitfuL 
Would such an objector be willing his own character should be 
treated in this manner, and be unequivocally exploded as a bad 
character, because a few blemishes had been discovered? Reader, 
wilt thou slay the truth with the error, and that the truth should he, 
as the error? That be far from thee. Shall not every candid person 
imitate the judge of all the earth in doing right? 

But if Dr. Brown be correct in his views of mankind, this will 
he a very unfashionable, and therefore unpopular book: "As few 
men have the courage" says he, "to sacrifice their interest, their 
pleasure, or their fame to their regard for truth and justice, the 
great concern is, to speak and act, not as reason and virtue dictate, 
but as interested views, in conforming to the opinions, humours, 
and manners of others, may require. For, how is the favour of the 
greater part of men to be caught, but by adulation and servile res- 
pect? And what so efficacious for incurring their displeasure, as 
that manly and generous conduct and conversation, which indicate 
less solicitude to secure favour, than to enjoy self-esteem, a greater 



PREFACE. 

love of mankind than respect for individuals? Hence, most mea 
Lave an opinion for every company they frequent, and change' 
their sentiments oftener than their dress. — Politeness is making 
constant demands— propriety imposing new laws — men are al- 
ways the slaves of custom, and seldom follow the bent of their 
own genius and temper. Society is a species of stage, on which 
the actors appear in their turns, and play their parts. He is most 
applauded, and bears the highest price, who appears least him- 
self, and personates most successfully the assumed character. 

" The man who presumes to think, to speak, or to act, different- 
ly from the generality, even in matters of singular importance to 
the common good, is looked upon as an unsocial savage being, 
who, separating himself from his species, is entitled to no share of 
their regard and afteetion. It is well, if he is not exposed to thef 
severest effects of resentment and hatred." Brown^s JVatural 
Equality of Men, page 130 and 134. 

According to this bold representation, which Dr. Brown has 
had the assurance to make, it would appear, that an honest maa 
is not to expect much esteem in this world; but that, in order to be 
popular, a man's chief concern must be to conform himself to the 
fashion. Such a concern had little influence in producing the pre- 
sent Essay, and therefore, judging by the above representation, it 
is not difficult to foresee its fate. 

THE AUTHOR. 

Baltimore^ September i2, 1813, 



INTRODUCTION. 



X^EAviNG the busy multitude to pursue their momentary 
schemes, I sit down, thoughtful and retired, to consider myself, 
my origin, my Author and my end. 1 live in the world, pos- 
sessed of various faculties to think, and feel, and remember, I 
know not how. I want to know what I am, whence I am, and 
whither I am bound. 

I find I am a creature capable of being eitlier happy or mis- 
erable, and that happiness and misery are within my pow er, 
and, in a considerable degree, depend upon my voluntary ac- 
tions. There are many objects around me, some of which are 
calculated to hurt me, and others to minister to my wants. 
There are millions of creatures in the world, beside myself, 
some possessing similar faculties to those which I possess, and 
others of another kind. They also are capable of happiness 
or misery, and it depends upon my choice, whether 1 act in a 
way calculated to injure them, or to promote their felicity. Our 
nature, our feelings, and our wants are common; and the ques- 
tion presents itself, whether I should consider my own conve- 
nience alone, and gratify myself in every particular, however 
others may be injured; or, whether 1 ought to regard the gen- 
eral welfare, and sacrifice some of my private gratifications, 
to promote the native liberty and enjoyments of my fellow men? 
The latter appearing to be self-evident, I feel bound to use my 
thinking pow ers, that I may learn, not only the means of hap- 
piness and misery to myself, that 1 may pursue the one and 
avoid the other; but also what is calculated to guard others 
from misery, and to promote the tranquillity of universal so- 
ciety. 

B 



vi. INTRODUCTION. 

Happiness is the end of general knowledge; and any part of 
knowledge that has no tendency to this end, (if any such there 
be) is altogether useless and insignificant. I find that I desire 
happiness by an uncontrolable necessity in my nature: I need 
no increase of knowledge to stimulate me to pursue this end; 
but the means of it are as diversified as the works of God, and 
my ignorance of them is such that there is need of perpetual 
meditation to discover them; and I presume there would still be 
great room for improvements, were my life protracted for ten 
thousand years. 

As the means of happiness, when known, must be applied or 
reduced to practice, I conclude that in all my reflections I 
should have a reference to the regulation of my conduct; and 
that which shews me immediately how to act right, is the most 
important of all knowledge. He who pursues knowledge with- 
out any regard to practice, is like a man sitting by the way 
side, enquiring of every one, that he may learn the road to any 
certain place, in order to sit still and never follow the direc- 
tions he receives with so much apparent solicitude. 

In vain may he pretend that disinterested benevolence influ- 
ences him to acquire knowledge, that he may direct others into 
that path of right conduct, in which he refuses to walk him- 
self; for his own supine indifference refutes this pretension and 
evinces to every attentive spectator, that his benevolence is so 
very superficial that it only recommends that which he esteems 
not worth pursuing. It is some.selfish principle, and not a ge- 
nuine love of truth, which influences the empty speculations of 
such an individual; and it is well if he does not spend more 
time in learning how to excuse and justify his own indifference 
to virtue, than he does in teaching others how to pursue and 
enjoy the benefits thereof. Believing, as his conduct proves he 
does, that he can be more happy in the neglect of right conduct 
than in the practice of it, he will directly or indirectly recom- 
mend the same immorality to others, and will excuse or defend 
the delusion, by all the insinuating sophistry in his power. 

I am not only ignorant, I find, of many things which it «on- 
cerns me to know; but 1 am perpetually liable to fall into error, 
which is worse than ignorance. If I use my intellectual fa- 
culties a» 1 ought, I may through Divine assistance, I conclude, 



INTRODUCTION. vil 

acquire all that knowledge which my Maker has made neces- 
sary for my present state of being, as well as to prepare me for 
•ternal happiness hereafter; but there are many things which 
I cannot know, because the Almighty has not given me the 
means and the power to know them. If I believe nothing con- 
cerning them, bnt live contented in a state of ignorance, in 
matters which God has put beyond the reach of my understand- 
ing, I shall continue safe and happy; but if I form hypothesis, 
and resolve to believe without evidence, I shall fall into delu- 
sions that may have a pernicious influence upon my virtue and 
tranquillity. 

Hence it appears necessary for me to be at due pains to dis- 
tinguish between those things which may be known by mankind*, 
and those which surpass the limits of human understanding, 
lest I should spend my time in fruitless endeavors to compre- 
hend that which is incomprehensible. In so doing I should 
weary myself in vain: I should darken counsel by words with^ 
But knowledge, bewilder the understanding of others, as well as 
Biy own, and involve truth in the shades of impenetrable ob- 
scurity. I should waste and abuse the time and talents which 
the Parent of goodness has lent me for a season, and should 
remain ignorant of truths which might be knowTi, by prepos- 
terously neglecting tltem to pursue those subjects w^hich God 
has reserved for the contemplation of superior intelligences. 

To distinguish between things knowable by me, and those 
which are not so, I purpose to regulate my studies chiefly by 
this single rule; When a subject of apparent difficulty presents 
itself, if the impossibility of conceiving it more clearly do not 
appear self-evident, I must give it a full trial; I must avail 
myself of the most happy season, when my thinking faculties 
are in the best order, and labor to understand it w ith all neces- 
sary attention and perseverance: if in this attempt my concep- 
tions become more clear and distinct, I receive it as evidence 
that I am not out of my proper sphere; but if e\ery attempt be 
Iruitless— 'if my pains and labors serve no other purpose than 
to weary my spirit, and involve the subject in greater obscu- 
rity, I take for granted that this is a subject beyond the grasp 
of my understanding, and must immediately give up the pur* 
suit^ 



viii. INTRODITCTION. 

Among the vast variety of subjects within the compass of 
human thought, I ought to select those for my most serious and 
attentive investigation, that appear to have the most essential 
relation to the solid and perpetual happiness of mankind. 
Those of secondary importance should have but a secondary 
degree of attention, especially as our stay in this world is so 
short, that we must necessarily remain ignorant of many par- 
ticulars for want of time to examine them. 

By the study and communication of truth, I hope to glorify 
my Creator, and to promote the welfare of my fellow creatures, 
as well as my own, by exhibiting those amiable and august per- 
fections of the Deity, which are the foundation of all felicity 
in every part of the universe, I hope, through the mediation 
of my Saviour, to answer, in some degree, the end of a rational 
being, and to stand approved before Him whose vast intelli- 
gence scrutinizes the secret thoughts of every creature. 1 hope 
to contribute my mite to the support of truth and righteousness 
among the descendants of Adam, and to assist, as I may be 
able, the benefactors of mankind, in defeating the dark designs 
of malevolence, which have appeared in all ages, and which 
have sometimes threatened to banish all truth and virtue from 
the world, and to fill it with the intolerable darkness of super- 
stition, or of open atheism. 

But how shall I guard against splitting upon the rocks or 
running upon the shoals which stand threatening on either 
Land.^ How many good men have fallen into great mistakes? 
In attempting to steer our vessel upon the calm and unruffled 
current of reason and revelation, that we may reach our de- 
sired haven, much caution is needful to guard against the dan- 
gerous whirlpools of passion and of prejudice. Many, alasl 
have missed their course in a dark and a cloudy day, and hav- 
ing run a ground were unable to get forward and have long 
stood exposed to the waves of prejudice and passion; while 
others to avoid a similar fate, have unhappily kept at too great 
a distance, and thereby have fallen on the rocks upon the other 
shore. " Nothing is more common," says Mr. Fletcher " than 
for men to run into one extreme under the plausible pretence of 
avoiding another." 

Shall 1 presume then, that I will be able to avoid all dsm- 



INTRODUCTION. ix, 

ger, and to keep constantly on the even channeL^ I dare not 
presume so. Yet I cannot believe that all men are destined to 
run into dangerous errors of necessity, without charging my 
Maker foolishly. And "to run away" from the search of 
truth, on account of danger, "is but a coward's trick:" the ex- 
amples which history aftbrds, of the multiplied and dangerous 
errors of mankind, ought indeed to make us wary; but they 
ought never to cause us to fold up our hands and do nothing, 
under the whimsical imagination, that we shall mend the mat- 
ter by laying an embargo upon our rational faculties. 

God gave us talents that we might improve, not bury themj 
and I must be permitted to presume that a right use of them 
will lead to the end intended: and unless that end was to de- 
ceive mankind with various delusions, I conclude we may avoid 
all dangerous mistakes, provided we move cautiously, after 
having taken due pains to set out right. If we take a wrong 
direction when we first set out upon a journey, the farther we 
advance, the more we w ander out of the way. To avoid this, 
let us begin by examining what method God has established to 
lead his creatures to the knowledge of his truth. Let us labor 
to conceive and ascertain the proper method of distinguishing 
truth from falsehood, that we may trace out the causes which 
have led thousands so far into the wilderness. 



AN ESSAY 



ON TH£ 



PLAN OF SAJLVATIOI^. 



CHAPTER I. 

UPON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH 
WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE- 
HOOD. 



SECTION I. 

Ji general view of truth and evidence. 

GroD has given us power, by means of various faculties of our 
nature, to conceive many things, to distinguish between them, 
to compare them together, and to notice their connexion or 
repugnance to each other. The exercise of these faculties 
produces in us an immediate belief or conviction that some 
things are true and others false. Of all this we are conscious, 
as of our own existence; and if \ye^ discredit the evidence of 
consciousness, we may at once abandon all farther inquiry and 
resign ourselves to "the great profundity obscure" of uni- 
versal scepticism. I know my own existence; I find by con- 
sciousness alone; and if I cannot have a sure knowledge of this 
it is certain that I can know nothing else. If I exist not, I 
have no faculties, and of course no capacity of knowing; 
otherwise knowledge is acquired aud truth discovered, by the 
intellectual faculties of nothing. 

By the word truth, in its general application, I understand 
those propositions, or decisions of the judgment, which accord 



liJ AN ESSAY ON THE 

with the real existence, properties and relations of all things- 
those which do not thus accord with real existence, properties 
and relations, are false. 

The ground on which all truth rests, or the criterion by 
which it is to be ascertained, is called by the general name of 
evidence. This may appear in all possible degrees, from the 
slightest probability to the most absolute certainty: and tliat 
judgment which is according to truth, is regulated by the de- 
gree of evidence appearing in the subject on which it decides. 
If I judge that to be certain which is only probable, my judg- 
ment is erroneous; it is equally so, if 1 judge that to be only 
probable or doubtful, which is accompanied with evidence that 
is certain and indubitable. 

A falsehood is to be knovvn er ascertained by its repugnance 
or opposition to all evidence. As trutli is known by its connex- 
ion with evidence; and as truth and falsehood are opposites, it 
follows that falsehood and evidence stand in contradiction to 
each other. 

A doubtful proposition or hypothesis, is known by its entire 
want of evidence. If evidence appear for it, it is found to be 
a truth; if against it, it is found to be a falsehood: and in either 
case it no longer remains a doubtful proposition, or hypothesis. 
I will suppose a proposition is advanced that there are elephants 
and crocodiles in the nwon. Is this to be received as a truth or' as 
a falsehood? It cannot he ascertained as a truth, because there 
is no evidence for it; nor as a falsehood, because there is none 
against it: therefore to receive it for a certain truth were to 
espouse an hypothesis, and till some proof be produced either 
for or against it, I feel disposed to conclude that it is beneath a 
rational being to believe any thing concerning the matter. This 
conclusion must stand, or else the following one must fall. namely 
that it is the part of a rational being to regulate his belief by evi- 
dence^ and by nothing else. If we deny this, we say it is right 
and proper for men to believe without evidence, and if so, how 
rediculous and vain are all our demands for testimony, argu- 
ments and demonstrations, before we will consent to receive 
every thing we hear as a proper ohjectof our belief? 

But as all truth is to be known in this way, it appears very 
desirable to ttadei'staud what this certain something is^ which 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 13 

we call evidence. If truth is known by this, and by nothing else; 
and if we have no power to discover evidence or to conceive 
any thing concerning its nature, it is plainly impossil»lefor us to 
know any thing concerning what is true and what is false. 

But am I al:le to give what is called a logical definition of 
evidence? I think I am not. And shall I thence conclude that I 
have no conception of it, and that it is a word which has no 
meaning? If I conclude so, I find many similar conclusions will 
follow. No such definition can be given of existence, of time, of 
space, of power, of agency, thought, or intelligence. And must I 
therefore conclude that men have no conception of these things, 
and know nothing about the distinction between existence and 
non-existence ? If so, I must contradict my consciousness, give 
up ray own existence, and lay by my pen and paper for the moles 
and tlie bats. 

Not being willing so speedily to abandon my pursuit, I repeat 
the enquiry, what is evidence ? shall I answer that it is testimo- 
ny, argument and demonstration? This is only giving the names 
of different kinds of evidence, without explaining what the thing 
is in itself, demonstration is one thing: testimony is another; 
but that certain thing we call evidence is common to them both. 
I know there is a city in England called London, and another 
in France called Paris; but I never saw either of them, and their 
existence was never demonstrated: yet I am as certain of their 
existence, from human testimony, as I am of any other truth by 
demonstration. And my belief in the existence of those cities is 
founded on evidence, as well as in those truths which are con- 
tained in Euclid's Elements. 

What is it in human testimony which we call evidence ? AVill 
it be said we believe the testimony of men so far as their vera- 
city has been ascertained by experience ? I still pursue the sub- 
ject, and ask, what is it in our experience which we call evidence? 
Why must I believe a thing to be true, because it accords with 
my experience ? And why must I believe a thing to be true be- 
cause it is demonstrated ? How do I know but demonstration is 
the very thing that supports falsehood ? I suspect no rational 
answer can be given to these questions, but that there is some- 
thing in testimony, experience, and clear demonstration, that is 
iiaturally calculated to produce belief or conviction in an intel> 
C 



14 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ligent being that the thing thus proved is true: and this certain 
something which naturally tends to produce belief or conviction 
is what we mean by evidence. We find that experience, human 
testimony, consciousness, the external senses, and the decisions 
or operations of memory, have all the same tendency to produce 
conviction. It is the united judgment of mankind, that however 
these sources of knowledge may differ in many particulars, there 
is something common to them all: and that something is denomi-- 
nated evidence. A man believes that he thinks;that there is so- 
lid ground beneath his feet; that a great general once lived called 
OEORGE WASHINGTON; but uouc of tlicsc things have ever been 
demonstrated; and yet his belief is founded on evidence from 
three sources: from consciousness, sensation, and human testi- 
mony. 

Although the nature of evidence cannot be fully comprehended 
or logically defined, yet it frequently shines as the beams of 
light, to which it is often compared in the Holy Scriptures. I 
may be unable to define light, or to comprehend its essence; yet 
I have no difficulty in perceiving objects while it shines around 
them. As light is something which enables me to discover the 
existence of things about me, so evidence is something which il- 
luminates my understanding, whereby I discover many truths, 
and am able to distinguish them from falsehood. If I shut my 
eyes and refuse to admit the light till I can completely compre- 
hend its nature, I may grope in darkness at the blaze of noon: 
in like manner, if I refuse to admit the light of evidence till I 
completely comprehend how it enables me to discover truth, I 
may walk in unbelieving darkness to the end of life, 

t know it is true that I am now thinking. But how do I know 
this ? I know it by consciousness. But what is this conscious-^ 
ness ? All I know of the matter is that it is some kind of illumi- 
nation in my mind, or whatever else you may please to name it, 
that produces an immediate and invincible conviction, that I 
now think. If the evidence of our thinking be doubtful, that of 
demonstration is equally so, because demonstration depends 
upon thinking, without which it could afford no evidence at all. 

Can any man give a reason why we should yield to mathema- 
tical demonstration, any more than other kinds of evidence ? 
Will he offer this for a reason, that it is stronger than any other 



PLAN Ot SALVATION. 

Itind ? I know not what he means by its being stronger, unless 
it be that it is naturally calculated to produce a stronger or more 
firm belief in a rational nature, than any other kind; and if thi» 
be his meaning I must dissent from him, or give up my consci- 
ousness: for the evidence I have of my existence, and the exis- 
tence of this paper before me, is as strong and naturally tends 
to producei as firm a conviction. as any demonstration ever did 
or can do. 

Will he say it is a more reasonable kind of evidence than any 
other ? This is easily said, but what proof will he condescend 
to give us of its truth ? Has it ever been demonstrated that no 
other kind is so reasonable as this ? If not, he obtains the 
knowledge of this truth (if it be a truth) from some other source 
of evidence less reasonable than that of demonstration. And if 
so, is it not as unreasonable to receive this truth from that in- 
ferior source of knowledge, as any other ^ Is he conscious that 
demonstration is the most reasonable kind of evidence ? If so, 
consciousness has furnished him with a discovery that his boast- 
ed demonstration could never furnish, and he has no reason to 
give a preference to the latter, but what he professedly derives 
from the former. 

Will he say it is more intelligible, more clear, than the tes- 
timony of sense, of consciousness, or any thing else.^ How 
does he know it.^ Has it ever been demonstrated.^ If not, he is 
indebted to one of the less reasonable sources of knowledge, 
for one of his most unshaken principles of faith; namely, that 
our belief ought to be regulated by demonstrative reasoning, in 
preference to every thing else. And just as much reason as he 
has to give this the preference, so much he has to admire that 
source of knowledge without which he would never have made 
the discovery. This conclusion will remain undeniable till it 
he demonstrated that demonstration is the most reasonable kind 
of evidence. 

It will perhaps be said that mathematical truths are more 
clear and pertain than any other kind, because they are neces- 
sary, and it is impossible for them to be false. How do we 
know it is impossible for them to be false? In vain may it be an- 
swered that they have been demonstrated; for the first princi- 
ples of necessary truth are tak«u for granted, as well a« all; 



i6 AN ESSAY ON THE 

other first principles. Has it ever been demonstrated that " a 
part is less than the whole," and that " equal quantities added 
to equal quantities will make equal sums?" No: every mathe- 
matician knows that these principles are taken for granted 
)rithout proof, and if they be denied, all demonstratiou is at an 
end. I repeat the question, how do we know that these princi- 
ples are true, and that their contrary is impossible?. The only 
answer is, that God has given us faculties w hereby we perceive 
their truth with immediate conviction, as I now immediately 
perceive this paper lying before me. In like manner, by the 
faculties God has given me, I perceive this truth, with immedi- 
ate conviction, that I now exist, and that it is impossible for me 
to exist and not exist at the same time. The first principles of 
mathematical truth are seen no less immediately, and in a man- 
ner no less unaccountable: and I will wait patiently to hear what 
reason can be given why we should discredit those faculties God 
has given us, in their immediate decision of what is true^ any 
more than in their decision of what must necessarily be so. 



SECTION II. 

Concerning the several sources of our knowledge; and first, of 
those principles which are self-evident. 

Perhaps all the sources of human knowledge may be reduced 
to this general division, first, intuitive certainty, comprehend- 
ing all truths that are self-evident: secondly, the evidence of 
reasoning: and thirdly, the evidence of Revelation. I do not 
conclude absolutely that all evidence is comprehended in this 
division, or enumeration of the general sources of it; but I pre- 
sume there will be few exceptions found, if any, and till they 
appear, I must confine my remarks to the different members of 
this division. 

And first, we will consider the principles of intuitive certain- 
ty, that are self-evident. By their being self-evident, I mean 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 17 

that their evidence is contained in themselves, and the mind 
perceives it immediately, independent of all external proof or 
argument. 

Such principles are the foundation of all rational conclusions 
or deductions in every science, and we cannot begin to reason, 
till we first perceive some truth immediately, on which to take 
our stand; for all reasoning consists in inferring one truth from 
another, and we must be in possession of the first truth, before 
we can reason or draw an inference from it, otherwise the infer- 
ence is not drawn from truth at all; and if the premises be not 
true, how can the conclusion be so ? 

Some first principles have been mentioned already, and ex- 
amples might be given in every science or branch of human 
knowledge. This has been done by Dr. Reid and others; and 
all that is necessary for our present purpose is to present a few 
examples before the reader, and appeal to the immediate dic- 
tates of his judgment, as well as to the common judgment of 
mankind. 

Concerning truth in general, there are some self-evident 
principles, that are perceived by intuitive conviction, and bor" 
row not their evidence from any external proof. The first 
principle of this kind is, that there is a distinction between 
truth and falsehood. This is self evident, and if it be contra- 
dicted, nothing in the world can be proved by any argument: 
for after the clearest demonstration is laid before a man; how 
easy is it for him to reply, " your argument proves nothing to 
be true, any more than the most trifling sophism; and it is im- 
possible it should, seeing there is no distinction between truth 
and falsehood." Truth and falsehood are the same thing: 
therefore demonstration and sophistry are both alike, for they 
both support something; and whatever it be, it is all falsehood 
and all truth, because there is no manner of difference between 
them. • 

Now if I were disposed to turn sceptic, and to shelter myself 
in this strong hold, how in the name of reason and common 
sense should I be beaten out? Would you undertake to convince 
me by argument that there is a distinction between truth and 
falsehood? What is the argument by which it is to be proved? 



18 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Will it be said that reason, or the human faculties, perceive 
some things to be true and others false; that those faculties are 
correct in their decisions; and therefore there is a distinction 
between truth and falsehood? And what is this but merely af- 
firming the thing to be proved, namely, fhatOod has given us 
power to perceive, with immediate conviction, that some things 
are true and others false? This is taken for granted because it 
is self evident; and if we conclude God has given us deceitful 
faculties, and refuse to believe the contrary till it be proved by 
argument, we may remain forever in our unbelief: for no argu- 
ment can be given but what depends upon the exercise of those 
Very faculties which have before been supposed to be deceitful. 
For us first to suppose that our faculties are deceitful, and then 
to prove by arguments, produced by the exercise of those very 
faculties, that they are not so, is like our suspecting a certain 
man to be a thief and a liar, and then proving by his own testi- 
mony that he is an honest man. The veracity of our original 
faculties is taken for granted in every argument we use, and in 
every belief we form, from the beginning to the end of life; while 
we refuse to credit them, we must discredit every thing in the 
world; and if we resolve to believe that God has stamped a lie 
upon the human intellects and senses till our reason is able to 
muster up some argument for their veracity, besides that imme- 
diate conviction of it that exists in every rational being, we may 
at once give up all our knowledge, lie dow n in the profound 
and universal ignorance of scepticism, and believe nothing that 
ever was presented to the human understanding, excepting this 
one proposition, that our faculties are deceitful. 

Another self-evident principle is, that truth and falsehood 
are opposite to each other, or in other words, that it is impos' 
siblefor two contradictory propositions both to be true. 

Every man possessing the human faculties, excepting him 
who is in a state of insanity, immediately perceives the truth of 
those principles, and a thousand metaphysical arguments w ould 
not make them more clear, or more evident, than they are with- 
out them. 

Indeed, all such principles are incapable of being proved by 
any direct argument; except, perhaps, where two such truths 
are so related that one may be inferred from the other; because 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 19 

every true argument is built upon something more evident than 
the thing to be proved, otherwise it brings no additional evi- 
dence to the subject it was brought to support; and it is irra- 
tional to give any more credit to the principle, after the pre- 
tended support of such an argument, than we did before it was 
brought forward. And if two truths equally evident, are in- 
ferred the one from the other, this may serve for illustration; 
but no additional evidence is brought to either of them. But 
what principle can we find, on which to found an argument that 
is more evident than this, that truth and falsehood are opposite 
to each other, or that he who contradicts truth speaks that which 
is false.^ If we can find no other principle more evident than 
this, with which it stands connected, and from w hich it may be 
logically inferred, how is it possible for its evidence to be increased 
by any argument.^ 

Another self-evident proposition, connected with the former, 
is, that it is possible for truth and falsehood to be distinguished 
from each other by the human mind. If this be not believed upon 
its own evidence, it will never be believed at all: for it is impos- 
sible to prove it by any argument but such as will take for grant- 
ed the very principle itself as its foundation. For whatever 
the argument be, its premises must be true, before a true con- 
clusion can be drawn; and therefore the man takes for granted 
that he distinguishes truth from falsehood in the premises, be- 
fore he comes to his conclusion: and to say the conclusion proves 
the premises to bfe true, when itself has no evidence but what 
it derives from the premises, is to reason in a circle^ and to take 
for granted the very thing in question. 

We need not here introduce the various principles belonging 
to the different sciences: but a few thoughts upon the subject of 
morals, or of right and wrong, may not be improper, because the 
value of truth consists chiefly in leading us to pursue that which 
is right, and to avoid that which is wrong. This is the more 
necessary, as the subject of right and wrong has been sometimes 
represented as being so loose and unsettled, that every man may 
draw the line for himself, and make right and wrong 4;o suit his 
own taste, and may change them as he pleases. It has been said 
to depend entirely on edueation,and that which is right with one 
inan, or >vith one nation, is wrong with another; and diiferent 



20 AN ESSAY ON THE 

nations of men may if they please, form systems of morals direct- 
ly opposite to each other, and the ultimate conclusion is, that 
they are all right, and there is no such thing as wrong in the 
world, only so far as men are pleased to frame such an imagi- 
nation to themselves. This I suspect, has long been a pleasing 
theme of atheism; and I think it will stand firm to the end of 
the world, if it be indeed true, that there are no self-evident 
principles of morality; but if there be such principles; moral 
duty has as firm a foundation as mathematics. 

I am far from supposing that all moral duties are self-evident; 
thousands of cases may occur, in which we w ill be at a loss to 
decide what is right, and we are liable to err in moral subjects 
as well as in all others: I am only disposed to contend that there 
are a few general principles that are self-evident, and which 
stand from age to age as the basis of all moral reasoning. 

That our first conceptions of right and wrong do not depend 
solely on education, is evident from the following reflections: 

1st. Our fathers could not teach us a system of morality, with- 
out first having conceptions of moral subjects themselves; other- 
wise you say they could communicate that to us, of which they 
themselves were entirely ignorant. How did they come by their 
knowledge of right and wrong? why to be sure from their fathers 
and instructors. And so we may trace it back to Adam, and 
the question still recurs, how did the first man receive the con- 
ception that one kind of conduct is right and another wrong.? 
He must have received it from God, either by 'immediate revela- 
tion, or by the genuine dictates of his original faculties. Both 
are the voice of God in man, and I confess I cannot see why we 
might not as well believe that he gives a deceitful revelation, 
as to believe the genuine and immediate dictates of our original 
faculties naturally tend to deceive and lead us into delusion. 

2d. Adam's children must have had some conception of the 
distinction between right and wrong, before they could under- 
stand any of his instructions on the subject: otherwise you say 
one man can give another an original conception that is not the 
immediate* dictate of any faculty of his nature. And if a crea- 
ture can be instructed in those subjects, who has no original pow- 
er to conceive of moral obligation, why do we net educate our 
horses and dogs to become subjects of moral government, and 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 21 

proper members of civil society? They cannot understand our in- 
structions upon right and wrong, for this reason only, that they 
have no original conception of justice or of right, and it is impossi- 
ble for us to give it to them. Of course the reason why we can 
instruct our children in morality, and not our domestic animals, is 
that they have some faculty from whence the first conception 
arises, which brute animals have not: this conception they receiv- 
ed, uot from us, but from God their maker, in a manner best known 
to himself. 

3d. Let it be granted, that a man's moral opinons depend very 
much upon his education, and that his faculties have been much 
assisted by it in arriving to that maturity which they have acquir- 
ed; what then.^ Will it follow that his conception of the first 
principles of morals was as much received by education as any 
other opinion.^ If we conclude there is no real distinction between 
right and wrong, merely because our moral judgments may be 
warped by education, we might with equal reason conclude there 
is no distinction between trwe and /a/se; for surely our reasoning 
faculties are dependent on education as well as our conscience, 
and our belief of true and false is as much received from our fa- 
thers, as our views of right and wrong. And if the latter aftbrds 
just ground to conclude that men may draw the line of justice 
where they please, the former affords the same ground to con- 
elude that they may draw the line of truth where they please: and 
thus while with one hand we giv^e up all righteousness in favour of 
atheism, we give up all truth, with the other, in favour of that 
"sceptical philosophy" which teaches that all things are equally 
doubtful, and of course, that there is no such thing as knowledge 
in the world. 

4th. If the human soul has no original conceptions of right aaid 
wrong, it would be as easy and natural for men to believe one doc- 
trine of morality as another, and we might reasonably expect to 
see whole nations of them seriously believing and instructing their 
children, that barbarity to a man's dearest friends is the most 
lovely virtue he could possibly practise, while every species of 
kindness is immoral and wicked to the last degree. Did any 
savage in the wilderness ever believe this, and teach it to his 
children ? And why not, if it be as natural for us to receive one no- 
tion of right and wrong as another? 

But while we renounce this flimsy plea of the libertine, shall we 

run into another extreme, under pretence of supporting revelation, 

and maintain that the Bible is the only source from whence man- 
D 



22 AN ESSAY ON THE 

kind have derived all tlieir knowledge of riglit and wrong? Some 
christians appear to think that we discredit revelation, whenever 
we admit of any other source of knowledge, especially the know- 
ledge of duty. Who can tell us what is our duty, say they, or 
what is the will of God concerning us but God himself? This 
he has done in the Holy Scriptures, and they are the only sure 
guide for us to follow in matters of morality. 

1 answer, if the Bible be our only guide, I would be glad td 
know where it teaches the doctrine now under consideration: 
where is there a passage from Genesis to the Revelation, that says 
the Bible is the only source^ whence man derives his first concep- 
tions concerning right and wrong 9 If this be a truth, and if they 
have learned it either from the Old or New Testament, I confess 
it is a perfectly new discovery to me; for I have never been able 
to find any such declaration in all the scriptures. And if they 
hare learned it from any other source, and not from the writings 
of the prophets or apostles, then they have violated their own rule, 
and h ave gone to another standard to learn something concerning 
morality. 

It is true the Bible says, If any man speaJc, let him speak as the 
oracles of God, and if they speak not according to this word it is be- 
cause there is no light in them: 1 Pet. iv. 41. Isa. viii. 20. And I 
very readily admit that if we hold any opinion that is not accord- 
ing to, or which contradicts this rule, it is an error, and is neither 
received by intuitive conviction, nor by the right exercise of rea- 
son; because God will never give one kind of evidence to contradict 
another. But those passages only afi&rm that the Bible is a true 
rule, and therefore that which is not according to it, is false, be- 
cause it is impossible for truth to contradict itself. 

Do the inspired writers set out, by teaching us first of all, that 
there is a difterence between right and wrong? It is surely neces- 
sary for us to know this in the first place, and then we are ready 
to hear what is right, and what is wrong; but there is no 
such passage in all the Bible: it is every where taken for grant- 
ed, without so much as being mentioned, because God knows that 
man had an immediate conviction of it by the original faculties of 
his nature. 

If we had no other conviction of right and wrong but what we 
derive from the inspired writings, the precepts thereof would, 
to us, be perfectly arbitrary, and we should have nothing in our- 
selves to correspond to their fitness and rightousness: whereas one 
of those writers himself declared that they addressed themselves 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 33 

to every inan''s conscience in the sight of God. 2. Cor. iv. 2. The 
Bible itself is an address to our reason and conscience: and if we 
did not perceive its connexion with the genuine dictates of our 
rational and moral faculties, we should have no evidence of its di- 
vinity. 

Supposing a bible had been given, containing ten such com- 
mandments as these; 

1st. Thou shalt hate the Lord thy God with perfect detesta- 
tion and abhorrence. 

2d. Thou shalt blaspheme his name perpetually, and en- 
courage others so to do. 

3d. Thou shalt murder every upright man thou canst find in 
the world. 

4th. Thou shalt loathe and abhor thy parents, and take every 
opportunity to torment them to distraction. 

5th. Thou shalt steal all thy neighbour's goods, and do thy 
uttermost to starve him to death. 

6th. Thou shalt frequently put coals of fire in thy childrens' 
bosom, and keep them in lingering torment, as long as there is any 
life in them. 

rth. Thou shalt debase thy reason by drunkenness and do 
every thing in thy pow er to ruin every faculty of thy nature. 

8th. Thou shalt avoid all truth as deadly poison, and establish 
thy soul in lying and hypocrisy as perfectly and thoroughly as pos- 
sible. 

9th. Thou shalt encourage and reward all murderers and assist 
them to destroy all mankind, but themselves, from the face of the 
earth. 

10th. Thou shalt pull out the eyes of thy liarses and cattle and 
cut pieces of flesh from their bones, till they are gradually tor- 
mented to death. And lastly, thou shalt cut thine own throat, 
with all the rage of an infuriated devil, and thus put a finishing 
stroke to animal existence, and to all happiness under the sun. 

Now let me ask any man that has a conscience, to lay his hand 
upon his heart, and say if a bible containing such commandments 
would not be contradicted by the invincible dictates of his na- 
ture, and cause his soul to shrink back with horror! Hut if we 
have no conception of what is right and wrong, but w hat we derive 
from the inspired writings, it would be as perfectly natural and 
easy to believe tliese precepts to be right as any others, and no- 
thing more would be necessary to convince us that we ought to 
practise them as our sacred duty, but to find them in the bible. 



24 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Whereas if a bible had been given, as a book of inspiration, 
containing such precepts, however artfully it might have been 
brouglit forward, and under whatever specious appearances, I pre- 
sume its morality alone would convince every rational man that 
it originated from the devil. 

But if we had no conception of the nature of morality from any 
other source, if no conviction of the kind arose from the constitu- 
tion of our nature, one kind of morality exhibited in revelation 
would be as readily received, and as much adapted to product? 
conviction as another. 

If no conviction, on these subjects, arises from the native dic- 
tates of our conscience, or moral judgment, the purity of chris- 
tian morals would aftbrd no evidence in favour of tlie Gospel: for 
with what sense could I appeal to the purity of the scripture pre- 
cepts, as evidence to convince a man that they came from God, if 
there was nothing in his soul to dictate that one kind of morality 
is more pure, or more worthy of God than another ? 

The two principal sources of argument in favour of revelation, 
are, first, that it recommends itself and its credentials, to the plain 
dictates of our rational faculties; and secondly, that it appeals to 
every man's conscience in the sight of God, But if reason and con- 
science are to be laid aside, or entirely distrusted, as some would 
seem to insinuate, under pretence of exalting revelation; we should 
thereby sap the very foundation of every argument by which Chris- 
tianity is supported, shake hands with the sceptic, and acknow- 
ledge that the Gospel can be proved by no rational evidence. But 
w hile some of us are vainly supposing we do honour to revelation? 
by undervaluing our intellectual faculties, and almost insinuat- 
ing that the Gospel cannot prosper while reason or conscience is 
tolerated; there are others, with no such fondness for revelation, 
but equally willing to lampoon conscience out of the world, who 
maintain, under pretence of exalting reason, that all true concep- 
tions of morality are discovered and proved by argument. 

I am almost tempted to suspect that such persons do not fairly 
understand what an argument is: for how can an argument be formed 
till some truth is first known as the ground or premises, from which . 
the conclusion is inferred ? I presume every logician in the world 
will tell us that sound reasoning consists in drawing consequen- 
ces or conclusions from premises that are true. They will tell us • 
that if the premises be false, the conclusion must be equally so: and 
how, I ask, did we discover that the premises were true ? Were 
they regularly and logically drawn from other premises ? Then 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 23 

I)o\v did we discover that those others were true ? Thus we may 
trace the matter back till we come to the first link of the chain, 
the truth of which must have been discovered by some other means 
before it was possible for any argument to be formed. 

All our moral reasonings therefore, must rest upon some first 
principles of morality, discovered by the human mind, independent 
of such reasoning. Let us specify a few principles of this kind, 
and examine whether they have been discovered by argument. 

1st. There is one kind of conduct that is right and another kind 
that is wrong. 

2d. Right and wrong are opposite to each other, and it is impos- 
sible that they should be the same. 

3d. All mankind ought to do that which is right, and to avoid 
doing that which is wrong. 

4th. That conduct which tends to promote general happiness is 
right, and that which tends to promote general misery is wrong. 

These principles are no where expressly laid down in the scrip- 
tures, but are every where taken for granted: and I presume they 
liave never been proved by argument since the world was made; 
yet there is no point in revelation, or that has been proved by rea- 
soning, more evident than these, because they are the clear and 
immediate dictates of our moral faculty, and are discovered as in- 
dependently of all reasoning, as the first principles of mathema- 
tics. 

The principles just stated are so far from being discovered by 
argument, that they themselves are the foundation of all reason- 
ings in moral subjects, and it is impossible for any point in morality 
to be proved without them. Let us give an example, that the mat- 
ter may be plainly laid before the reader. 

1 propose to prove, by argument, that hypocritical lying is 
wrong: 

First, I take my stand on mathematical principles; 
A part is less than the whole; 

All the parts taken together are equal to the whole; 
Therefore hypocritical lying is wrong. 
If the reader receives no conviction by this argument, we will 
try another from astronomy: 

All the planets move round the sun: 
But this earth is one of the planets; 
Therefore lying is wrong: 
Take a third from metaphysics: 

All things which we perceive are ideas; 
But we perceive our friends and relations; 



^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

Therefore lying is wroug. 

Another from intellectual philosophy: 

Whatever is perceived by the immediate dictates of our original 
faculties is true; but they immediately dictate that there is solid 
ground beneath our feet; therefore lying is wrong. 

All this may appear like trifling; but I presume it is far worse 
trifling to impose upon the souls of men, by persuading them that 
they or their fathers had no moral conception till it was first disco- 
vered by argument. Let me suppose myself in this condition in 
which I am able to reason, but at the same time have no conception 
of any thing belonging to morality: I must certainly begin to reason, 
thenj from something which 1 know; and having tried four kinds of 
premises, I find their regular conclusions would leave me as pro- 
foundly ignorant of all moral subjects as 1 was before. Where then 
shall I take my stand } I may run through every other branch of 
human knowledge to form my premises, with no better success, 
till the premises themselves are formed of moral principles: the 
reason is, that no sound argument can contain any thing in the 
conclusion but what is contained in the premises and is derived 
from them: therefore if the conclusion be of a moral nature, the 
premises must be equally so. 

Let us now try what success we can have, when we begin to 
build upon the right foundation. 

That conduct which injures mankind, and tends to promote gen- 
eral misery is wrong; but hypocritical lying has this tendency^ there- 
fore hypocritical lying is ivrong. Now the conclusion stands clear 
and can never be overturned, unless it can be made to appear that 
one or both of the premises are not true. If this can be made ap- 
pear, the conclusion must fall; for it has no evidence but what de» 
peuds upon their truth, and upon its connexion with them. 

If a free-thinlier should take it in his head to deny the minor 
preposition, and declare that lying and hypocrisy do not tend to the 
general misery of mankind: he thereby proves himself a fool for 
uttering so many complaints against the dreadful evil that has 
been done in the w orld by hypocrisy and priest-craft: and if he 
deny the major, and insist that it is not wrong to do that which 
tends to general misery, he equally excuses all priests and hypo- 
crites, and proves himself to have less regard to morality than a 
barbarian. 

If he is forced to acknowledge that it is wrong to do that which 
tends to the general misery of mankind, I must repeat the enquiry, 
how did he come by the knowledge of this truth? Has it ever been 
proved to him by argument ? If so, what w ere the premises. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 27 

from which this conclusion was drawn ? They mnst have been as 
evidently true, as the principle which he says has been proved by 
them, otherwise it has as much evidence without their assistance 
as with it. And if he has deduced this conclusion from some other 
principle of morals, more evident than this, how did he come by 
the knowledge of that.^ was it inferred from principles still 
more evident.^ from what then were they inferred.^ Thus we may 
run him back ad infinitum, and he is absolutely forced to confess 
that all rational argument begins upon principles that are self- 
evident, or upon such as have no evidence at all. If the former, 
the point for which I contend is gained; if the latter, all the prin- 
ciples of true reasoning are contradicted, which are founded on 
this axiom in logic, that the conclusion can never be inore evident or 
more true, than the premises from which it is drawn. 



SECTION IIL 

Two objections answered. 

It may be objected, first, that the general principles of right and 
wrong here laid down are not self-evident to the human mind, oth- 
erwise all men would agree in them: whereas many have disbe- 
lieved them, and whole nations have contradicted them in prac- 
tice. I answer: 

1st. It is true, that all sinners contradict them in practice; 
but if we conclude no rule of right can be self-evident to a man 
while he has power to violate it in practice, we make the rule of 
right consist in doing what a man is forced to do of necessity. And 
if we suppose a man's doing w rong, is a proof that lie knows no 
better, we suppose that all sinners perpetrate their crimes iVom a 
suspicion that they are right, and if they were fully convinced of 
the wrong they would not do it: whereas their acting in opposition 
to that conviction is the very ground of their criminality, and 
without it they would be no more accountable than a beasts 

2d. A man's professing to disbelieve first princijjles is no proof 
against them. Many have professed to disbelieve them, and tried 
hard to do it, in order to quiet their consciences and rest satisfied in 
their inexcusable vices: and wishing to conquer their natural con- 
victions of justice, they are fond of professing their unbelief, and 
gladly offer what arguments they can in dcff?ncp of it, that thrv 



28 AN ESSAY ON THE 

may influence others to do so, and thus they hope to gain numbert 
on their side, and strengthen themselves by the soothing influence 
of authority. 

Some sceptics have professed to discredit their senses, and to be- 
lieve the present existence of the world is not self-evident: yet they 
will as cautiously avoid the fire and the water as other people. 

In like manner some libertines may profess to have no evidence 
to convince them of the first principles of morals: yet when they 
themselves are injured, they immediately resent it; and manifest as 
full a conviction of right and wrong as their neighbours. They 
may purposely stifle the dictates of conscience, respecting their 
own duty, and then pretend they have no evidence of what is right: 
and so a servant may stop his ears when his master is giving di- 
rections, and afterwards excuse himself by saying, "Sir, I did not 
hear you:*' but Be not deceived, for God is not mocked; whatsoever 
a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 

3d. If men labour for a long while to do violence to their nature, 
and at last ruin their faculties, till they are lost to the plainest dic- 
tates of common sense, is this deception produced by the genuine 
dictates of their faculties r or by the great pains they have taken 
to subdue them ? shall I put out my eyes, and suppose I have there- 
by produced a very clear argument, that the eyes God has given 
to mankind are not naturally calculated to enable us to see ? or 
that seeing is not accompanied with a self-evident conviction that 
the objects before our eyes do actually exist ? KI am now blind, 
who is to blame ? Is God to blame for not giving me better eyes, 
or I myself for having pulled them out t And if a man debases his 
rational faculties till he is no longer able to distinguish between 
sense and nonsense, who will offer this as a serious argument that 
the reasoning powers of mankind are naturally deceitful ? We 
might as well say that the case of a man, who through long and ha- 
bitual melancholy has been led to believe that his head is made of 
glass, miglit justly be produced as a powerful reason to convince 
us that the dictates of common sense are all fallacious, and that it 
is impossible for us to distinguish, with any certainty, between a 
piece of glass and a man's head. 

4th. I would be glad to know what evidence has been produced 
of an instance, I will not say of whole nations, but of a single in- 
dividual of the human race, Jew or Gentile, savage or barbarian, 
that ever seriously questioned, or doubted, whether right conduct 
is that which tends to the general happiuess, or that which tends 
to the general misery of mankind. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 69 

We have often been referred to those persecutors who murdered 
the upright and thought they were doing God service, as instances 
in point; as also to those heathens who burnt their own children in 
the fire, from a conviction of its being their sacred duty. 

But I hope it may be made appear that these instances afford 
no manner of evidence against the principle which, with so much 
confidence, they are brought to disprove. Why did those persecu- 
tors murder the upright ? was it not because they believed them 
to be a nuisance in the creation, and that they would render aa 
essential service to mankind by putting them out of the way ? if 
so, they were so far from disbelieving the principle, that it is right 
to do that which tends to general happiness, that they acted upon 
it in those very actions which are produced to prove that it was 
not acknowledged by them. Their error consisted, not in taking 
for granted that a man ought to promote general happiness rather 
than misery, which is self-evident to every savage in the wilder- 
ness, but, in supposing that the general welfare would be promo- 
ted by the murder of those men. They were led into this wicked- 
ness, not by the genuine dictate of their conscience, which produ- 
ced a conviction of the former principle, but by the influence of 
their prejudice and malice, which influenced them to espouse the 
latter. 

And why did those heathens sacrifice their own children ? Was 
it from a conviction that it was right, to do every thing in their 
power to banish all happiness from the face of the earth ? not at 
all: They believed, as well as we, that it is right to promote gene- 
ral happiness, and wrong to do the contrary; but from the phren- 
sy of their superstition, they were led to suppose that the sacrifice 
of their children was necessary to secure the general welfare, by 
averting the judgments of their angry Gods. In this their error 
consisted, and this was no dictate of their moral faculty: but they 
espoused it through passion and false reasoning, which led 
them to multiply their deities at pleasure, as imagination 
should suggest, and then to attribute to them the malevolent 
affections of devils and wicked men. 

And because the heathens abused their reason, by yielding them- 
selves up to their wicked passions, we are disposed to apologize 
for them, are we.^ and are not for attributing any of their absurdi- 
ties to the inexcusable indulgence of abominable passions; but the 
whole must be resolved into the deceitfulness or deficiency of the 
original faculties which God Almighty had given them! In thig 
manner, I fear, some christians think they de God service, and 



30 AN ESSAY ON THE 

support the honour of revelation, by supposing the heathens have 
no certain knowledge of right and wrong, and of course that they 
are pefectly excusable, in the midst of all their crimes! 

Revelation declares the contrary, in the most unequivocal terms: 
«« For when the gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the 
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law 
unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their 
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts 
the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Rom. 1. 14. 
And were they perfectly excusable in that superstitious idola- 
try which led them to burn their own children .^ Was it plainly 
impossible for them to know any better ? It was not: " Because 
that which may be known of God, is manifest in them: for God 
hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him froni 
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so 
that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, 
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became 
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed 
the glory of the incorrupiible God, into an image made like to cor- 
ruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping 
things." Rom, 1. 19. &e. 

Thus the Apostle declares positively, that their barbarous idol- 
atry did not arise from any deficiency in either their reason or 
conscience; but from their pride — ^professing themselves to be 
wise: and from reasonings built upon their vain imaginations, or 
hypotheses. 

The second objection is, " that if we admit that there are first 
principles, which are to be taken for granted without proof, men 
may receive what they please for a first princi2>le, and shelter 
themselves very securely from all argument, by pretending that 
their opinions are too evident to admit of reasoning. By what 
criterion are your self-evident principles to be ascertained? and 
how w ill you make it appear, that we are in no danger of being 
deceived in these matters.^" I answer: 

1st. If we are to conclude there are no self-evident principles, 
because it is possible to receive that for self-evident which is not 
so; the very same argument would drive all kinds of evidence out 
of the world. Let us try the virtue of this formidable objection, 
and trace its invariable application: 



PLAN OF SALVATIOIV. 31 

Men may be mistaken, and take that for a first principle which 
is not so; therefore there are no principles that are self-evident. 

Men may be mistaken, and take that for a sound argument 
which is not so; therefore there is no sound argument in the world. 

Men may be mistaken, and take that for the true meaning of 
scripture which is not so; therefore the scripture has no true 
meaning. 

Men may be deceived, and take that for true christian experi- 
ence, or immediate inspiration from God, which is imaginary; 
therefore no christian experience, or inspiration from God, is de- 
serving any credit. 

Thus we have a plain and short road to scepticism, infidelity 
and atheism. 

2d. It is a vain thing to attempt to muster up any other criterion 
of truth and certainty, than the plain dictates of those faculties 
which God has given to man; for none other can be had; and if we 
refuse to credit these, I presume our unbelief is more perfectly iu- 
curable than the lunacy of any man in Bedlam. 

Suppose a man, being afflicted with the gout or pleurisy, tells 
us he is in great pain or misery; is this true or false.^* if true, tow 
does he know it? not by scripture, argument, or demonstration: he 
knows it, because it is self -evident You ask him, by what criterion 
he knows that he is in a state of misery: he immediately answers, 
«I know it is so, because I feel it." Now if we should wander 
through the wilderness of metaphysics to eternity, I presume we 
should never give a better answer, or a better criterion. 

A witty philosopher might reply, "You say you know it is so, 
because you feel it; but how do you know that your feelings are 
notfallacious ? By what criterion do you determine when they are 
according to truth, and when they are not? Can you make it ap- 
pear that it is impossible that you should be deceived?" 

I suppose the man of common sense to reply: Sir if you will not 
allow me to believe any thing, till 1 can make it appear that it is 
impossible for me to be deceived, I must not believe you are any 
thing different from a quadruped; far it is surely as possible for me 
to be deceived in taking you to be a man, as it is in believing the 
reality of whatlfeel. This, if I have right conceptions of it, would 
be answering a fool according to his folly; and I leave the reader 
to decide which evinces the most solid reason and judgment, the 
philosopher's queries, or the sick man's reply. 

3d. The man that rejects all first principles, because he may 
pos-sibly be mistaken, and may receive eomething for self-evident, 



32 AN ESSAY ON THE 

I 

which is not so, manifests almost as much wisdom as he, who having ^ 

received a number of eagles or guineas, casts them all into the sea, . 
hecause some of them may happen to be counterfeit, and because he 
may possibly be mistaken in judging some of them to be pure me- 
tal when they are not so. Or the wisdom of such a person may 
perhaps be considered to equal his, who refrains from all food un- 
till he starves himself to death, for fear he might partake of some- 
thing poisonous, or might possibly be mistaken in judging that to be 
wholesome food which w as not wholesome. And indeed if it be 
true, as some philosophers appear to imagine, that our senses are 
very deceitful, and we never know when they are to be trusted, we 
are all foolish, for supposing that we can distinguish, with any cer- 
tainty, between gold and iron, bread and poison: for it is by means 
of our senses only, that the understanding is able to judge of these 
matters. 

Permit me to suppose that two philosophers have each received 
a certain sum of money; one of them belongs to the old academy, 
and the other is a genuine disciple of Dr. Reid. They sit down, 
and reason together, upon the proper disposal of their treasure. 

They both agree, first, that more or less of their coin may be 
counterfeit. They agree, secondly, that it is possible for them to 
err, and to take a counterfeit piece to be genuine. 

They agree, thirdly, that it is a matter of great importance to 
distinguish the precious from the vile. 

But though there is this perfect harmony between them, con^ 
cerning the premises, yet they diflfer very widely in their conclu- 
sions. 

The sceptic concludes, his wisest course is to cast his money in- 
into the sea, without farther ceremony, lest he should be deceived. 
The other concludes, the wisest course is to examine each piece by 
itself, in a clear light; and after comparing them together, form the 
best judgment he can. If any one appear evidently to be base 
metal, and if there remain no room for reasonable doubt concern- 
ing it, he consents that it may be cast into the sea; but he will not 
cast any away, upon the first appearance of their being suspicious, 
hut will reserve them for farther examination. Those which he finds 
to be evidently good, he applies to their proper use, and resolves, 
that where he can see no good reason to doubt, he will not doubt. 

The sceptical gentleman addresses his companion in these terms: 
« you, sir, have admitted, that there may be base metal in your 
possession, how little or how much you know not: you have granted 
^Iso, that you may possibly be mistaken in your judgment, when 



PLAN OF SALVATION. B6 

you attempt to distinguish the precious from the vile: now you 
ought to consider, that your counterfeit coin, will go into circulation, 
and deceive others as well as yourself; therefore I counsel you to 
lay aside your dogmatical spirit and cast your treasure at once in- 
to the ocean, lest the whole should prove to be counterfeit." His 
friend replies, " If sir, I cast all this money indiscriminately in- 
to the sea, on account of the abstract possibility of my retaining 
some peices that are counterfeit, I might as well cast all my food 
into the sea likewise; for it is equally possible for me to mistake 
its quality; and if all mankind should adopt your short method of 
avoiding poison, and should abstain from all kinds of aliment till 
they starve and perish, would you receive it as a demonstration of 
their wisdom and profound philosophy ^ This would indeed re- 
duce them to the state, in which your philosophy supposes them 
now to be; for, provided they had no existence after death, all 
things to them would be equally uncertain and unknown: but 
while mankind are permitted to live, and to enjoy their present 
faculties, I must presume, that your metaphysical refinements will 
never be able to shake their firm conviction in the plain dictates 
«f common sense." , 

Leaving the reader to judge of the logic of those minute philo- 
sophers, I return to the objection. 

4th. I am far from supposing, that all first principles so impress 
themselves upon the human soul, that every man is absolutely 
forced to perceive their evidence whether he will or no. We may 
hold it self-evident that mankind have eyes, by which they are 
enabled to see, without supposing that every man is oompelled 
to see by some fatal necessity. A person may shut his eyes if he 
be so disposed, or may put them out and remain in total darkness. 

A self-evident principle may long be concealed under the rub- 
bish of sophistry, and men have not the opportunity to see it in a 
olear light: remove the rubbish, bring it out of the enormous tem- 
ple of hypothetical metaphysics, set it before a man of common 
sense, in its own native simplicity, and he will immediately per- 
ceive its truth with self-evident conviction. It needs no foreign 
argument to support it; let it only be brought to open view, where 
it can be properly and distinctly understood, and it will shine by 
its own native lustre, like " the powerful king of day, rejoicing in 
the east." 

First principles are like the sun, and the fixed stars of heaven: 
they scorn to depend upon a borrowed light; and for us to attempt 
to support them, by arguments drawn from some other quarter, is 



34 AN ES8AY ON THE 

like holding a candle to the sun, under pretence, that his own rays 
are not enough to satisfy our profound intelligence of his existence. 
Some of the brightest luminaries of truth have been longconceajed, 
and almost totally eclipsed, by the thick fogs, of metaphysical 
dust, that have been raised to obscure their evidence: nothing more 
is wanting, to restore them to their native dignity, than a removal 
of the hypotheses and sophistry, which have interposed as a dark 
cloud, and obstructed their influence upon the human understand- 
ing. 

And shall we conclude that they are not self-evident, because it 
is possible for them to be obscured? We might as well believe there 
is no such thing as light in the world, or that its existence is not 
self-evident, because it is possible for men to retire into a dark 
cave where its beams are excluded, and where all is silent and 
gloomy as midnight, in the "great profundity obscure.*' 

When the woman lost her piece of silver, she immediately be- 
took herself to sweeping and searching the house, in ord^r that 
she might find it: let us suppose that a sceptical philosopher hai 
purposely concealed it, under some rubbish in one corner of the 
house: after removing the rubbish she perceives it, takes it in her 
hand rejoicing, calls in her neighbours, and concludes, certainly, 
that she has found her money that was lost. But the philosopher 
comes forward, hoping to deprive her of her property, by mere 
dint of argument. " Madam," says he, " how do you know that 
you have certainly found your silver.^" "I hold it now in my hand,*' 
says she, "and see itbefore myeyes.^' But you ought to consider (he 
rejoins) that it is but a very little while since this money was con- 
cealed from you, and you could not perceive it: therefore your pre- 
sent perception of it is not self-evident, because nothing is self-evi- 
dent, but what is immediately present to the mind from the cradle to 
the grave: nothing can be self-evident but an innate idea, and as 
there is no such thing, nothing can be certainly known to be 
true in this way: therefore you ought not to believe that you have 
found your silver, till it be proved by argument. Your senses are 
very deceitful, and though you seem to see this money, very plain- 
ly, and to feel it in your hand, yet you ought not to receive such fal- 
lacious representations, or you will expose yourself to perpetual , 
delusion. And besides, it is impossible for you to perceive any 
thing but an idea, and therefore the piece of silver you so much 
rejoice over, is nothing but an idea, and that, itself, is not contained 
in your hand, but in your brains. I therefore counsel you to drop 
this vulgar notion, and go again in pursuit of your lost treasure." 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3d 

Query. — Would the neighbours conclude, that this gentleman was 
seriously employed, in striving to benefit the woman, by instructing 
her in the knowledge of truth, or that he had a secret design to 
wheedle her out of her money ? 

6th. Although self-evident truths, need only be seen, to be be- 
lieved; yet several things are necessary to their being properly 
seen: 

First, our faculties must have arrived to some degree of matu- 
rity; because, in a state of infancy, we are incapable of exercising 
that voluntary attention, which is necessary to the conception of 
some of the plainest and most evident truths. But if no truth is 
to be admitted as self-evident, because it is not perceived to be so 
by an infant, then no argument can be a sound one, because it is 
not perceived to be so by an infant. 

It is an easy thing to suppose (1st.) that a self-evident truth 
and an innate idea are the same thing, and (2d.) that man has no 
innate ideas: the conclusion then very evidently follows, that man 
perceives nothing that is self-evident. 

I confess it is beyond my power to comprehend whether men 
have innate ideas or not; for I cannot understand what an idea is, 
if it be any thing different from a thought: and I hope nobody will 
say, it cannot be self-evident to a man that he thinks, because he 
is unable to prove that any of his thoughts are innate. I know 
thatlnow think, and thati do not receive this truth by reasoning, but 
by self-evident conviction: if you could prove, by ten thousand argu- 
ments, that I have innate ideas, this truth, that I now think, would 
be no more evident to me than it now is; and if you prove by as 
many more, that I have them not, you w ill make it no less evi- 
dent. 

I know it is impossible for me to be in Europe and America at 
same time. How do you prove that says a philosopher.^ I answer 
I cannot prove it at all, because it is self-evident. But if it be self- 
evident, says he, then it must be an innate idea; but an infant has 
no such idea, therefore it cannot be innate: consequently you do 
not know any such thing, and ought not to believe it, till it be 
proved to you by some argument. 

Thus am I brought to a point at once, and what shall I now do ? 
I must appeal to the good sense of mankind to decide which would 
be the more reasonable course for me to take. To go in search of 
some argument to prove that 1 cannot jive in Europe and America 
at the same time? Or to attempt to make it appear that the philoso- 
pher's doctrine congernin? ideas is a mere fiction, invented to ac- 



36 AN ESSAY ON THE 

count for our perception of external objects, and which contradicts 
the plainest dictates of the human faculties, and ends in unirersal 
scepticism? The latter has been done eftectually, by Dr. Reid, 
Dr. Beatty,Dr. Campbell, and others: and I suspect that those who 
still adhere to the old jargon, concerning ideas in the brain, have 
either never heard of those authors, or dare not read them, for fear 
of being convinced; or else they are very indifferent about the 
matter, and are willing to be content with any system, provided it 
have a sufficient number of votaries on its side. 

Secondly, our faculties must be in a sound state, in order to 
judge of self-evident principles. 

A crazy man may hold it very doubtful whether there be any truth 
in the testimony of his senses: and, as a proof that he does really 
distrust them, may walk carelessly into the fire; but when we ex- 
amine the genuine dictates of the human faculties, I hope we will 
not go to Bedlam to draw our conclusions. If a physician should 
chance to find a man with a disorder in his eyes, which made him 
pur-blind, and should thence infer, that the human eye cannot dis- 
tinguish objects, at the distance of fifty yards, would he not be just- 
ly suspected of insincerity, or of being more disordered in his un- 
derstanding than the poor man was in his eyes.^ 

Thirdly, The plainest truths may be unnoticed and undiscover- 
ed, merely for want of that attention and habitual thinking which 
is necessary to a clear conception of them. We have no immedi- 
ate conviction of their truth at present, not for want of argument, 
but for want of such explanations as shall set them in a clear light 
before us, separated from that confusion in which our own obscure 
thoughts, or the sophistry of others, had involved them. Sophis- 
try is often more disconcerted by such clear statements and fa- 
miliar illustrations, as serve to take of every veil, and to set the 
truth in a fair light before the mind, than she is by direct argu- 
ment: because, if self-evident truths be kept out of view, or the at- 
tention be diverted from them; and if her darling hypothesis can 
be kept from too close a scrutiny, she can put on the appearance 
of the most clear and conclusive reasoning. One conclusion is 
built on another, in the most exact order, until they grow into a 
system. The world is invited to behold the beautiful fabric: op- 
ponents are challenged to show any defect in the reasoning: and 
all is safe, so long as it can carefully be kept out of view, that a 
secret hypothesis is the chief corner stone of the building, and sup- 
ports the shining castle in the air. An hypothesis too, which is 
not only destitute of any evidence, but which, if properly examin- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ajf 

ed, will be found to be an absurdity, shocking to the commoii 
sense of mankind, and perhaps subversive of all human know- 
ledge. 

The longer this is kept out of sight, the greater numbers will be 
led into the delusion, till at last the mighty fabric becomes so 
yenerable by age, and has received suc;Ji support from authority, 
and at the same time has so many respectable names and authors 
to plead in its favour, who have been unhappily drawn into the 
snare, for want of due care and attention to distinguish between 
first principles and hypotheses, that it becomes a kind of heresy^, 
presumption, or dogmatism, for a man even to suspect the founda- 
tion of this vast building, which has been reared by such able and in- 
genious hands. If you affirm that there ate some first principles 
which are self-evident, and ought to be believed very confidently, 
you are branded with being dogmatical? but if you indulge the least 
doubt or suspicion concerning the hypothesis, which has been taken 
for granted without proof, and which has only numbers and author- 
ity to plead in its favour, you are entirely too sceptical. These are 
very ingenious stratagems, but I am a little inclined to think, that 
truth can do very well without them. Fourthly, another thing es- 
sentially necessary to the clear conception of first principles, is, 
that sincere love of truth, that candid honesty of mind, which will 
give every subject a fair and dispassionate hearing. "Prejudice is 
blind," says Mr. Fletcher, and I persume it will never be any thing 
better than a blind guide to the end of the world. Its influence on 
our minds is so pernicious, that instead of leading us to pursue 
k-uth by the pure light of evidence, it leads us to resist conviction, 
when the evidence almost overpowers us. By doing so for a long 
time, it becomes formed into a habit, the judgment becomes warp^ 
cd and enfeebled, the most evident truths are rejected with in- 
difference, or perhaps with detestation, till we seem almost inca- 
pable of judging by any other rule, than that of our passions, our 
interest, or the opinions of our party* 

We are all prone to this great weakness, to say no iworse of it j 
and if each one of us would spend that time in examining its influ- 
ence on himself, which is spent in casting the teproach on otherS| 
how would the shades of error fly before truth's illuminating rays! 
If every one would spend that time in cultivating a spirit of can-* 
dor, which he spends in search pf sophisms, or of something; 
worse, to support the opinions of his party, or his pride, which he 
is resolved to defend at every hazard, how delightfully would 
truth and happiness flow in upon mankind! 



38 AN ESSAY ON THE 

But without pretending to decide who is most guilty of this 
evil, christian or deist, jew or gentile, another man or myself, I 
only mention it here, as it is a chief cause of our being often blind 
to the clearest evidence, whether that evidence be contained in 
an argument, or in a first principle, as the foundation of it. 

6th. Lastly, if there be a doubt concerning any principle, whe* 
ther it be self-evident or not, there are several tests by which it 
can be tried. 

First, if it be self-evident, every man of common understand- 
ing, and in his right mind, is capable of judging of it; and needs 
only a clear statement of it, to perceive that there is something 
in it tending to produce conviction that it is a truth: of course 
there will be a general agreement among men concerning it, so 
far as they understand it, and are unbiassed by partiality. Who 
can doubt that men generally agree in such truths as these: — 
There is a material world of earth and water, on which we live — 
There are men in this world, and other living creatures — these 
are living creatures, have power to walk, and some of them 
to iiy — Men have power to think, and to make kno\\Ti their 
thoughts to each other. Many of them that once lived, are now 
dead — There is a diflference between a dead man, and a man that 
is alive. 

Does any person want arguments to prove the truth of these 
things? No: it is more likely that many will almost suspect me 
of a partial derangement, for gravely laying such things before 
them. But they ought to be informed, that some of 
those very propositions have been denied by several of our philo- 
sophers or Avise men, while others have been seriously employed 
in search of arguments to prove them. 

Secondly, when a proposition appears at the first view to be a 
truth, and yet we cannot prove it by any argument, but such as 
will take for granted the very thing in question, this is an evident 
mark of a first principle. Several examples of this kind have 
been given, to which we may add the following: 

I lay this down as a first principle: a sound argument always 
contains evidence of truth. Now if I refuse to take this for grant- 
ed, how will I prove it? Let me offer M'hat argument I will in its 
support, I take for granted the very thing in question; otherwise 
I suppose my argument, whatever it is, to have no evidence, 
though a sound onej and, therefore, the principle is left just as 
destitute of evidence as it m as before I produced my argument. 
Thus all^men are forced t© admit first principles, and take them 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3fl 

for granted, or their boasted reasoning itself, falls lifeless to the 
ground. 

Thirdly, though self-evident truths cannot be proved by direct 
reasoning, yet they may be supported by arguments ad abstirdmn: 
I mean, that we may suppose the contrary to be true, and shew its 
consequences to be a chain of manifest absurdities. This method 
of reasoning is often used by mathematicians, and it may be ap- 
plied with equal force to any other subject, when self-evident prin- 
ciples are contradicted, which, alas! is but too common. 

For an example, we will propose this as a first principle: ^4 de- 
cree of credit is due to hitman testimony. Now if this be denied, 
we can suppose the contrary to be true, and trace its consequen- 
ces, which the objector is forced to take along with him, or give 
up reason as well as common sense. 

If no regard is due to human testimony, then it is unreasonable 
to believe the testimony of any man in the world, otherwise you 
say it is reasonable to believe that which is incredible. It fol- 
lows, also, that no man in the right exercise of his reason, will 
believe any thing he reads in history concerning Alexander, Sir 
Isaac Newton, General Washington, or any other man. 

He will not believe in the existence of any nation, country or 
city, until he sees it himself, nor even then, if his senses are not to 
be trusted. 

When he is informed of immediate danger from savages, or oth- 
er hostile enemies, he will not believe it, so much as to move from 
his seat, until he sees them with his own eyes, and thus he will 
become an easy prey to their barbarity. 

Children, to act reasonably, should never believe the testimony 
of their parents, or of any others; that there is danger in poisonous 
drugs, or any thing else, till they make the trial by experience, 
and thus would the race of men soon perish from the earth. 

These and such like absurdities, are inseparable from the prin- 
ciple, that it is unreasonable to give any credit to human testimony: 
and hence the opposite is self-evidently true. 

1 shall frequently have occasion to use this method of reason- 
ing, perhaps, through the present essay, because I may find it 
necessary to rescue some of the most interesting truths from the 
sophisms under which they have been concealed. 

For a farther account of these matters I refer to Reid's Essays 
on the Intellectual and Active Powers of Man. I might support 
the sentiments here advanced, by many quotations from his works, 
but I will close the present section by the folio wiu'^ quotation 
from Dr. Watts. 



4gi AN ESSAY ON THE 

« Intelligence relates chiefly to those abstracted propositions 
which carry their own evidence with them, and admit n© doubt 
about them. Our perception of this self-evidence in any proposi- 
tion is called intelligence. It is our knowledge of those first princi* 
pies of truth, which are, as it were, wrought into the very nature 
and make of our minds: they are so evident in themselves to every 
man who attends to them, that they need no proof. It is the pre- 
rogative and peculiar excellence of these propositions that they 
can scarce either be proved or denied: they cannot easily be pro- 
ved, because there is nothing supposed to be more clear and cer- 
tain, from which an argument may be drawn to prove them. They 
cannot well be denied, because their own evidence is so bright 
g.ud convincing, that as soon as the terms are understood, the mind 
necessarily assents; such are these, whatsoever acteth hath a be- 
ing; Nothing has no properties; a part is less than the wholes 
Ijothing can be the cause of itself." 

'' These propositions are called axioms, or maxims, or first 
principles; these are t)ie very foundations of all improved know- 
ledge and reasonings, and on that account these have been 
thought to be intiniate propositions, or truths born with us," 

" Some suppose that a great part of the knowledge of angels 
and human souls, in the separate state, is obtained in this manner, 
namely, by such an immediate view of things in their own nature, 
which is called intuition." 

Logic; or the right u^e of reason* page 162. 



SECTION IV, 

Of the evidence of reasoning. 

Having spoken of reasoning in the preceeding section, to show 
its connection with first principles, there is the less occasion to 
dwell largely on it in the present. 

All true reasoning consists simply in tracing the connexion of 
one tru|:h with another, by direct argument; or in tracing the con- 
nexion of one falsehood with another, not to establish errors, but 
to exhibit thejr absurdity, and thereby to establish the opposite 
truth. 

All direct reasoning must stand or fall with these two proposi- 
tions: (1st.) that the premises of every true conjelusion ^c either 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 41 

self-evident, or may be regularly deduced from principles that 
are so. (2d.) That every regular and sound argument contains 
evidence of truth. 

All indirect reasonings, or arguments ad absurdum, must stand 
or fall with this principle, that truth and falsehood are necessa- 
rily opposite to each other: for if this be denied, it is vain for us 
to attempt to support any thing as a truth, by shewing that its op- 
posite leads to an evident absurdity, because the whole force of 
the reasoning rests upon the axiom, that truth and falsehood stand 
in necessary and invariable opposition to each other. 

That a true conclusion will never follow from false premises, is 
not only so evident in itself, that the contrary is rediculous to any 
man of common understanding; but it is a matter in which all logi- 
cians have agreed, from the days of Aristotle to the present time; 
and if all treatises on logic would distinctly exhibit the simple 
rules of reasoning, and separate them from the obscure and un- 
meaning jargon of the schools, I presume the art of logic, or the 
right method of reasoning, would become an art of great respec- 
tability among mankind. 

If the arts and sciences are disgraced and filled with perplexity, 
by those who delight to darken counsel by words without know- 
ledge, truth and reason are not to blame; for simplicity and per- 
spicuity are the strong hold of both; while error and sophistry 
gladly retire from the light, and derive great advantage from the 
most inpenetrable and profound obscurity. 

A few short quotations from Dr. Watts, who is acknowledged 
to stand among the most approved logicians, may be necessary to 
set the matter in a proper light, and to confirm the view of it for 
which I contend, 

" The third operation of the mind," says he, <'is reasoning, which 
joins several propositions together, and makes a syllogism, that is, 
an argument whereby we are wont to infer something that is less 
I^nown, from truths which are more evident. 

" Axiom — Particular propositions are contained in universals, 
and may be inferred from them; but universals are not contained 
in particulars, nor can be inferred from them." 

" Rule II. The terms in the conclusion must never be taken 
more universally than they are in the premises." 

*'Rule IV. If one of the premises be negative the conclusion 
must be negative." 

"Rule V. If either of the premises be particular, the eanclu- 
flion must be particular." 



4ij AN ESSAY ON THE 

" These two lost rules are sometimes united in this single sen- 
tence; The conclusion always follows the weaker part of the pre- 
mises." — Logic, or the right use of reason; page 251 — 258. 

Now if all sound reasoning consists in argument, whereby 
we are wont to infer something that is less known, from truths 
which are more evident; and if the conclusion always follows the 
weaker part of the premises; it is very obvious not only that both 
the premises must be true, but that they must be more evident in 
themselves, than the conclusion to be supported by them. If 
either of the premises be a falsehood, the conclusion certainly is 
not proved to be a truth. If either of the premises be doubtful, 
the conclusion is doubtful. If either of the premises be an hypo- 
thesis, the conclusion is an hypothesis. 

Consequently, in every good argument the premises are either 
self-evident, or must themselves be proved by some other premi- 
ses, before any true conclusion can be inferred from them. If 
they are to be proved by other premises, then those others must 
be self-evident, or they also stand in need of proof: thus by trac- 
ing the matter back, we clearly perceive that all true con- 
clusions of reasoning ultimately resolve themselves in those ax- 
ioms which stand as the foundation of all human knowledge. 

Let us illustrate this matter by one or two examples from the 
same author. 

'' Every human virtue is to be sought with diligence; prudence 
is a human virtue; therefore prudence is to be sought diligently." 

Logic p. 257. 

Now every reasonable man at once perceives that this conclu- 
sion depends upon the truth of the foregoing propositions, and if 
either of them be false, they afford no evidence of the consequence 
inferred. 

That every human virtue is to be sought with diligence, is an 
immediate consequence of a self-evident truth before stated ; 
namely, that all mankind ought to do that which is right, and a- 
void doing that which is wrong. For we must know the right in order 
to do it, and therefore every virtue is to be sought with diligence. 
If the first truth be contradicted, it can never be proved by direct 
argument, but only by shewing the absurdities which would follow 
from a denial of it. That prudence is a virtue, is evident, be- 
cause it tends to general happiness, and the contrary to misery ; 
it is therefore clearly deducible from another axiom, which has 
been before examined. 

Again: " No liar is fit to be believed; 

Every good christian is fit to be believed; 

Therefore no good christian is a Vmr.^^-^Logic p. 261. 






PLAN OF Sx\LVATION. 43 

The first proposition in this argument is a clear deduction from 
the axiom, that truth, rightly zinderstood and believed, tends to the 
happiness, and deceit and falsehood to the misery of mankind. 
This principle has indeed been questioned by Mr. Hume, as well 
as the other branches of human knowledge; but his authority has 
but little weight when we consider that he questioned the exis- 
tence of God, of angels, of earth and water, of sun, moon and stars, 
of human souls and bodies, and believed that there is nothing in 
existence but ideas and impressions. Whether the ideas were 
spiritual or coporeal, 1 have never been informed: and as to the im- 
pressions, it seems, there is supposed to be no a^-eut to make them, 
and no soul or body on which the impression can be made. 

The second proposition is a clear principle of revelation; for a 
christian is a man who follows the precepts and example of Christ; 
all deceit and lying are by him forbidden, and therefore no good 
christiaji is a liar; or, which is the same thing, no liar can be a 
good christian. 

From what has been said, it is plain that all our reasonings 
must ultimately be founded, either upon self-evident truths, upoa 
manifest falsehoods, or upon hypotheses, which have been invented 
by the flights of imagination and conjecture. It is easy to affirm, 
that such things cannot be immediately distinguished from each 
ether; and if such a declaration is to pass for truth, we are at 
•nee at a full stand: but I presume a better method, though not so 
short an one; would be to produce examples of each kind, and ap- 
peal to the dictates of common sense. The examples follow: 

JioQimn — The soul of all virtue consists in a perpetual will, to 
honor God and promote the general happiness of man. 

Ahsairdity — The soul of all virtue consists in a perpetual will 
to disbelieve and abhor the Creator, and do our uttermost to de- 
stroy all human felicity. 

Hypotheses — Jupiter was created twelve hours sooner than our 
earth. The philosophers of Europe will be ten times wiser at the 
beginning of next century, than men have ever been since the world 
was. made. There are many robberies and murders committed by 
the inhabitants of the moon. 

From the axiom, many interesting conclusions may be drawn, 
concerning the duties of mankind in the various relations of life. 

From the absurdity, a string of consequences may be regularly 
deduced, sufficient to shock an inquisitor, and to insult the good 
sense of every savage in the world. 



44 AN ESSAY ON THE 

From the hypotheses, we might build many castles in the air, to 
allure and impose upon the human mind; but though we should 
draw our conclusions with as much logical regularity as ever ap- 
pieared in any mathematical demonstration; and though we should 
rear the mighty fabric into a system that would fill twenty vo- 
lumes, and should engage, in its defence, the most sublime geniuses 
of the age, yet would every conclusion remain as destitute of all 
rational evidence, as the hypothesis on which it was founded. 

And will any man, but an idiot or a lunatic, seriously profess 
to be incapable of perceiving any more evidence in one of those 
positions than in another? Will any man affirm, in the face of 
Heaven, that, to him, they all appear equally evident, and that he 
needs proof or argument to satisfy his soul of the truth of any one 
of them, as much as another? To such a man, I have nothing 
more to say. It would be far more agreeable for me to spend my 
time in casting straws against the wind, than seriously to reason 
with him, or to enter into the amazing depths of his philosophy. 

It is true, that a great deal depends upon confounding hypothe- 
ses with first principles, and upon promoting a general persua- 
sion, that it is very difficult, or altogether impossible, for the hu- 
man mind, with any certainty, to distinguish between them: for if 
men in general can be prevailed on to neglect the plain and im- 
mediate dictates of their intelligence, and to take for granted, that 
their faculties are incapable of furnishing immediate evidence of 
any proposition, and that all truth must be proved by philosophic- 
cal arguments: — what an easy matter is it for an ingenious man to 
impose upon them by forming a conjecture, and by artfully con- 
cealing it from public inspection, to put on the appearance of most 
masterly reasoning? His conclusions are drawn with beautiful 
regularity, and in a form the most scientific and plausible; the hy- 
pothetical foundation is overlooked, because our attention is di- 
verted from it by the symmetry of the superstructure; and who 
can suspect any deficiency in reasonings so conclusive and philo- 
sophical? I grant the reasoning may be unexceptionable, as to the 
regularity of inferring one consequence from another; but let it be 
remembered that the principle whence they set out, was a mere 
conjecture, destitute of evidence, and therefore the consequences 
deduced from it, are a string of fanciful opinions, drawn from an 
unsupported fiction, and imposed upon the world as the genuine 
productions of sound and unadulterated reason. 

One or two examples may suffice to illustrate and confirm thi? 
view of the subject. 



PLAN OF SALVAtlOX. 45 

M Are we to suppose," says Mr. Paine, "that every world, ia 
the boundless creation, had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Re- 
deemer? In this case, the person, who is irreverently called the 
Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else 
to do, than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession 
of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life." 

»^ge of reason, part 1. page 69. 

Thus it would appear, if revelation be true, respecting our need 
of a Redeemer, that Christ must have suffered often since the fouu" 
dation of the world. And it equally follows that all the other 
worldsj " in the boundless creation," must have a bible for their 
instruction: they must have ministers, magistrates, and physicians': 
they must have representatives, governors, lawyers and judges: 
they must have penalties, prisons, penitentiaries, and hangmen: 
and they must have swords, muskets and great guns, to carry on 
their wars, and acquire " military glory." In this way, it would 
be easy to multiply our conclusions, until we should form a poli- 
tical and military system for the inhabitants of Jupiter. We might 
amuse ourselves with the philosophical ideas of men chasing 
foxes in the moon, and almost fancy we can hear the report of the 
enormous guns discharged by the armies of Georgium Sidus! 

But let not imagination fly too high; let her pliant wings be res- 
trained a little, till we pause a few moments, and enquire, whence 
are all these wonderful conclusions.^ Common sense gives a secret 
whisper to the soul, and says. All these interesting matters are 
built upon this solitary unsupported hypothesis: that every world 
in the boundless creation, is inhabited by just such men and women, 
and other animals, as we see walking up and down upon the face 
of our world. 

I doubt not but many of Mr. Paine^s jovial and tame dlscipleS 
have not only been convinced and established by such flimsy argu* 
ments, but have been highly delighted at such a masterly display 
of philosophical genius, as they see exhibited in this humorona 
argument, concerning "An Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Redeem- 
er:" but I hope there is good sense enough left in our country, as 
well as in other parts of the world, to see through the veil of so- 
phistry, and to decide that an age of reason, and an age of ridioule 
and conjecture, are very different things. 

Let us produce another example of more magnitude, and one 
which has made a great noise in the philosophic world. 

We will state two propositions, which stand against each. 
G 



46 AN ESSAY ON THE 



I 



other, and let tlie reader judge ^vhich appears most like a self- 
evident truth. 

1. God has given us the sense 2. By the sense of seeing, 
of seeing and hearing, and oth- hearing, feeling, tasting and 
cr senses, whereby we immedi- smelling, we perceive nothing 
ately perceive many external but ic?eas i?i our 6rain; and all the 
objects, with an immediate con- knowledge we can have, of any 
viction of their present exist- thingintheworld, is byiw/erewce 
eHCC. from the ideas which we per- 

ceive. 

Which of these positions are we to receive as an axiom of 
truth, on which to build a system? Which of the two appears to 
stand most in need of argument to prove it? Is it enough for a man 
to tell us, very gravely, that the first is a vulgar error, and the 
other is altogether philosophical? So would his holiness, in St. 
Peter's chair, inform us, that we must contradict our senses, and be- 
lieve that a piece of bread is really a god, otherwise we are vul- 
gar heretics that have no just ideas of the true divinity. 

" It seems evident," says Mr Hume, "that men are carried by s^ 
natural instinct, or prepossession, to repose faith in their senses; 
and that without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of 
reason, we always suppose an external universe, which depends 
not on our perception, but would exist, though we and every sen- 
sible creature were absent or annihilated. 

<<But this universal and primary notion, of all men, is soon des- 
troyed by the slightest philosophy which teaches us, that nothing 
can ever be present to the mind, but an image or perception, and 
that the senses are only the inlets through which these images 
are received, without being ever able to produce any immediate 
intercourse betv/een the mind and the object." 

This philosophy has been very fully examined by Dr. Reid, 
to whom I must again refer the reader. See his Essays, vol. 1. p, 
205. All I have to do with the matter, is to illustrate the differ- 
ence between a first principle and an hypothesis, as the proper 
ground of reasoning. 

If "this universal and primary notion of all men" be really 
true, that there is " an external universe" which we perceive by 
means of our senses, then the science of astronomy has a solid 
foundation; — then navigators and surveyors of land are really 
measuring the parts of an external universe, and are not employed 
in marking the distance of one idea from another in their brains. If 
this " natural instinct," by which we are led " to repose faith in onr 



PLAN OF SALVATION, ^ 

wnses,"^ be permitted to stand firm, then meohanieal emplojmcHts, 
merchandise, and agriculture are preserved from metaphysical 
annihilation, and the husbandman, when following his plow, is 
really making a furrow upon solid ground, and not upon an idea 
in his brain. When he returns from the labours of the day, he 
finds a real house, composed of certain parts of " an external 
Hniverse;" his wife and children are all real beings, and he is ena- 
bled to enjoy an '• immediate intercourse" with them. But if he 
had *• the slightest philosophy," it seems, this universal and pri- 
matry notion of all men would be soon destroyed;" and he would 
immediately make the astonishing discovery that the house, which 
sheltered him from the storm, was nothing but an enormous idea 
that contained his w hole family in its bosom! Being fully instruct- 
ed in the metaphysical trans ubstautiation, he would understand 
that on his wedding day he was married to an idea, and that his 
children are all young ideas, growing up like olive plants around 
^the idea of) his table. 

Mr. Hume, or others, would perhaps reprove me for descending 
to such vulgar illustrations, and inform me that these are matters 
too serious and important to be trifled with in this manner; and I 
suspect that some learned doctors of divinity, would be apt to give 
a similar rebuke, in defence of the Holy Eucharist; but if I have 
drawn any wrong conclusion it must be imputed to my ignorance, 
for I really thought these consequences would follow, if it be real- 
ly true, that we see, and hear, and feel nothing but ideas. But per- 
haps I do not understand the subject rightly: let us attend to thqse 
views of the matter " which philosophy teaches us." 

''But this universal and primary notion of all men is soon des- 
troyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us, that nothing 
can ever be present to the mind, but an image or perception." 

Is Mr. Hume right in saying that philosophy teaches this ? Dr. 
Heid says he is right, and that this had been taken for granted as 
a first principle of philosophy, for more than a thousand years. 
And it appears that Mr. Locke, though a man of a most amiable^ 
candid, and penetrating mind, unhappily received the same theory, 
and took it for granted without examination. When speaking of 
the word, idea, he says, " I have used it to express whatever is 
meant by fantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is w hich the 
mind can be employed about i n thinking, and I could not avoid 
frequently using it. 

" But what shall be here the criterion ? How shall the mind, 
when it perceives aotbing but its own ideasj know that they as^ree 



1.8 AN ESSAY ON THE 

with things themselves ? This, though it seems not to want diffi> 
culty, yet I think there are two sorts of ideas that we may be as^ 
sured agree with things." See the introduction to Lockers Essay on 
Human Understanding. 

Thus is Mr. Hume right when he informs us what philosophy 
teaches, and his position, " That nothing can ever be present 
to the mind but an image or perception," is explained by Mr. 
Locke, when he says '^ TI»e mind perceives nothing but its own 
ideas." 

Let the question stand clear of every embarrassment, as truth 
delights to stand. I am now sitting on this chair, with the paper 
before me; on my right hand I see a number of books of different 
sizes: Now I want to know, ^vhether I really perceive this chair 
iand paper, that table and those books, or not. 

Answer: ^' Nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image 
or perception." I do not ask whether the books be present to my 
mind, but whether I now perceive them, and am now thinking 
about them ? Answer; the word idea signifies " whatever it is 
which the mind can be employed about in thinking. The mind 
perceives nothing but its own ideas." While I hold this book in 
my hand, then, and look at it, am I to suppose that I perceive 
the book and the idea at the same time, and am thinking 
about them both.? If it be granted, that I really perceive the 
book, and am now thinking of it, this is all I ask: the thing 
which I now see and feel I perceive to be a real book, con- 
taining the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, composed of 

solid paper, leather, and printed letters variously arranged 

Grant me this, and I find no occasion for the idea of a book, to 
enable me to see it; and could I perceive the idea as clearly as 
I now perceive the book, I would not ask for arguments to prove 
its existence. And if it be said that the idea is the instrument or 
medium through which, or by means of which, I perceive what! 
now hold in my hand, this I feel willing to concede, provided it be 
granted that it is really the book which I now perceive, and about 
which my mind is now employed in thinking. The idea may 
serve as an instrument or medium of perception, as well as (he 
eye and ear, or any other organ of sensation; and no harm is done^ 
80 long as I am permitted really to perceive and behold this exter- 
nal universe which God has created; but if ideas should usurp the 
place of other things, and obstruct my sight, so that I can perceive 
nothing but themselves; my soul! come not thou into their secret^, 
but be content to walk the old beaten path of common sense. 

But suppose we nnderstand the philosophers really and literals 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 49r 

If to mean, that the mind perceives nothing but its own ideas, and 
that every thing is an idea and nothing else, about whieli it ever 
«an be employed in thinking: are we pern?ltted to take the conse- 
quences along with us ? or must we sacrifice our reason to the god- 
dess of philosophy, and espouse a number of palpable contradic- 
tions? 

If I perceive nothing but ideas, it is plain that this pen, which 
I perceive, is an idea; held by the idea of a hand, belonging to the 
idea of myself, and making the idea of writing, upon the idea of 
paper, in order to form the idea of a book. But I am told that I 
form the idea of a book, whenever I think about it: strange then^ 
that after studying and writing so long, I only form the samo 
idea which can be formed in a moment. I am now thinking of 
Mr. Hume's, history of England: is that history nothing but an 
idea? If so, why did not Mr. Hume form the idea by thinking 
of the English history for a few moments, without so much ex- 
pense of thought and labour, to bring forth this great work, that 
the ideas of men might read it, after the idea of death should take 
him to the idea of eternity. 

I do not mention these things to cast any unfair reproach upon 
the subject, but because I cannot understand it in any other way, 
and I hope philosophers will not blame me for speaking about va- 
rious kinds of ideas, since they declare it is impossible for me t© 
think about any thing else. 

What more does philosophy teach us? Answer: « That the 
$enses are only the inlets through which these images are receiv- 
ed." But what are the senses themselves? and what is it thai; 
receives the images through them? Are they all ideas? One 
idea receives another, through another; and I do not see why 
they might not as well have continued asunder, and wandered 
through the gjooms of chaos, with the atheistic atoms, which have 
long wandered through the fathomless abyss, till they luckily met 
together to form the idea of a world. 

And if images come not through the inlets of the senses, from 
whence come they? from the "external universe." It seems then 
that they had a separate existence before they came through those 
inlets, unless you say, that which has no existence can move from 
one place to another, through certain channels, till it seats itself 
in the human brains. And if ideas had a separate existence before 
they came through the channel of our senses, millions of them 
Plight have floated about the atmosphere, or some where else, if 
po living creature had been ever made. 

♦• The senses are only the inlets through which these images 



50 AN ESSAY ON THE 

are received, without ever being able to produce any immedia^ 
intercourse between the mind and the object." 

Is Mr. Hume right in this last conclusion, or is it an unjust in- 
ference which he drew from the doctrine of ideas.^ I think his 
conclusion is perfectly correct; for if "The mind perceives no- 
thing but its own ideas," and if the word idea is to stand for 
« whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in think* 
ing," it is plain that the mind cannot perceive or think about any 
object but its own ideas: and what immediate intercourse is there 
between my mind, aiid an object, which I can neither perceive nor 
think about? 

I see a candle standing before me: but the thing which I per- 
ceive and think about, is not a candle, you say, but the idea of a 
candle. The idea, it is said, came from the candle, through the 
inlet of my senses; but how do I know this.'^ did I perceive it com- 
ing from the candle.^ if so, I perceived the candle as well as the 
idea, otherwise I could not see the one coming from the other. — i 
And if I perceived the candle, as the idea was leaving it, I no lon- 
ger stood in need of the idea, to enable me to perceive it. But if 
I perceived nothing but the idea, how do I know that there is in 
fact any thing else.^ did the idea bear witness that it came from a 
real candle, of which itself was the image? if so, it enabled me to 
think about a real candle, otherwise you say it brought me this tes- 
timony, and yet did not enable me to think about it, and of course, 
I was left as much in the dark as ever. 

When an object is before me, and I look at it, I am told that J 
perceive nothing but an idea; and when it is absent, and I think 
about it, it is not the object itself that I think about, but its ideay 
gr image in my mind: consequently, it is impossible for me to have 
any manner of evidence for the existence of any thing else but 
ideas, otherwise I may have clear evidence for the existence of 
what I can neither perceive nor think about. 

If I may be permitted to trust my senses and consciousness, I 
never perceive an object double: when my friend stands before me, 
I see him very clearly to be one and undivided: and if philosophy 
should teach me, that I, at the same time, perceive two objects, 
one being the real body of my friend, and the other his image, in 
my brain, this is a new discovery, and a secret for which I can find 
no evidence in nature, but the ipse dixit of my learned instructor. 

When my friend is absent, I distinctly remember how he ap- 
peared when present, and can recollect even the features of his 
countenance: here also the object of my thought is one and no 






PLAN OF SALVATION. 5± 

more. I am not thinking of two objects, precisely of the same 
figure and appearance, one of which is really my friend, and the 
other his image; and if the single object of which I am now thinks 
ing, be nothing but an image or idea, it is plainly impossible for 
me to think of the man at all. When he was present, I perceived 
him standing before me; the object I now conceive or think about, 
is the very same I then perceived by means of my senses; and if 
it was nothing but an idea I then perceived, it is nothing but an 
idea I now remember, and of course, my knowledge of what is pre- 
sent, and of what is past, consists in the perception of ideas, and 
in nothing else. 

I do really perceive my friends, when they are present, and think 
about them, when they are absent, or I do not; if I do, the world 
staQds firm against the encroachments of metaphysics; if I do not, 
then ideas and images are all the friends I ever had — at least all 
I have ever seen or thought about, since the first moment of my ex- 
istence. And unless you can prove the existence of that to me, a 
single thought of which cannot possibly enter into my mind, I re- 
main solitary and alone, in this imaginary universe, with only 
ideas for my companions, from the beginning to the end of life. — 
Thus are we handsomely conducted to universal scepticism, by a 
chain of consequences, clearly deduced — from what? — from a hy- 
pothetical fiction, that denies the plainest dictates of common 
sense, and overturns all human knowledge. 

" Mr. Locke had taught us," says Dr. Reid, "that all the im- 
mediate objects of human knowledge, are ideas in the mind:" Bi- 
shop Berkeley, proceeding upon this foundation, demonstrated very 
easily, that there is no material world. And he thought, thaty 
for the purposes, both of philosophy and religion, we should find 
no loss, but great benefit in the want of it. But the Bishop, as be- 
came his order, was unwilling to give up the world of spirits. He 
saw very well, that ideas are as unfit to represent spirits, as they 
are to represent bodies. Perhaps he saw, that if we perceive on- 
ly the ideas of spirits, we shall find the same difficulty in infer- 
ring their real existence from the existence of their ideas, as w^ 
find in inferring the existence of matter from the idea of it; and 
therefore, while he gives up the material world, in favor of the 
system of ideas, he gives up one half of that system in favor of 
the world of spirits; and maintains, that we can, without idcas^ 
think, and speak, and reason, intelligibly about spirits, and what 
belongs to them. 

" Mr. Hume shows no such partiality in favour of the world of 



33 AN ESSAY ON THE 

spirits. He adopts the theory of ideas in its full extent: and, H 
consequence, shows that there is neither matter nor mind in the 
universe; nothing but impressions and ideas. What we call a 
body, is only a bundle of sensations; and what we call the mind, 
is only a bundle of thoughts, passions, and emotions, without 
any subject. 

" Some ages hence, it will perhaps be looked upon as a curiou* 
anecdote, that two philosophers of the 18th century, of very dis- 
tinguished rank, were led by a philosophical hypothesis; one, to 
disbelieve the existence of matter; and the other, to disbelieve the 
existence both of matter and of mind. Such an anecdote, may not 
be uninstructive, if it prove a warning to philosophers to hew are 
of hypotheses, especially when they lead to conclusions which 
contradict the principles, upon which all men of common sense 
must act in common life." — Essay 11. Chap. XII. p. 191. 

When I consider that these are the natural productions of hy- 
pothetical reasoning, I no longer w onder that men of common un- 
derstanding, are suspicious of that thing called philosophy. I 
am no more surprised that the term, metaphysics, is a word which 
carries something gloomy to the human mind; or that men in gen- 
eral should be reluctant to enter into a fantastical wilderness, 
where they will be in such imminent danger of losing body and 
soul together, in a fog of species, fantasms, ideas, images and 
chimerical impressions. 

This, together with the fantasms of Popery, has given birth 
to that reproach, which has sometimes been cast upon "the noble 
faculty," as Mr. Fletcher terms it, "which chiefly distinguishes 
us from brutes." This has caused many to undervalue the noble 
gift of reason, and to discourage the regular and diligent improve- 
ment of our intellectual powers. But let it be remembered, that 
those ideal conjectures, and atheistic conclusions, are as opposite 
to true reasoning, as darkness is opposite to light, and truth to hy- 
potheses and absurdity. 

" When we find philosophers maintaining," says Dr Reid, 
" That there is no heat in the fire, nor colour in the rainbow: when 
we find the gravest philosophers, /ro7?ii>es Cartes down to Bishop 
Berkeley, mustering up arguments to prove the existence of a ma- 
terial world, and unable to find any that w ill bear examination: 
when we find Bishop Berkeley and Mr. Hume, the acutest 
metaphysicians of the age, maintaining that there is no such thing 
as matter in the universe; that sun, moon, and stars, the earth 
which we inhabit, our ow n bodies, and those of our friends, are 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 5^ 

«nly ideas in our minds, and have no existence but in thought! 
when we find the last maiataining that there is neither body nor 
miud; nothing in nature but ideas and impressions, without any 
substance on which they are impressed; that there is no certainty^ 
nor indeed probability, in mathematical axioms; I say, when w« 
consider such extravagances of many of the most acute writers on 
this subject, we may be apt to think the whole to be only a dream 
of fanciful men, who have entangled themselves in cobwebs spun 
out of their own brain. But we ought to consider, that the more 
closely and iugeniously men reason from false principles, the 
more absurdities they will be led into; and when such absurdities 
help to bring to light the false principles from which they are 
drawn, they may be the more easily forgiven.'^ Essay 1. chaj). vi. 
page 73. 

If all lovers of truth would consider the matter according to 
this just and candid representation, they would find no cause to in- 
ilulge that misplaced indignity which has sometimes been cast 
upon the exercise of our reason, in the pursuit of truth, merely 
because our rational faculties may be abused or misapplied. We 
should hear no more complaints of the great uncertainty there is 
in all subjects relating to the mind, and its intellectual powers. 
\^hat subject will not be uncertain, if men suft'er themselves to 
beat the slW with wild and fanciful conjectures, that are repug- 
nant to truths the most evident that can be presented to the hu- 
man understanding ? 

The theory of ideas, has not only proved metaphysical subjects 
to be very uncertain; but it has proved every branch of human 
knowledge to be equally so, "mathematical axioms" not except- 
ed; and if we are to judge by this rule, we must conclude that re- 
ligious doctrines themselves, are as uncertain as any others; for 
where shall we find a greater jargon of nonsense and contradic- 
tion, than has been passed upon the world, under the name of 
Christianity. 

The truth is, there w ill never be any regularity or consistency 
in our systems till we agree to lay the foundation in first princi- 
ples, carefully examined, before we raise our superstructure. All 
probable reasoning, as well as any other, is founded on principles 
that have a self-evident probability. This matter has been fully 
explained by the author last quoted, and we may have occasion 
to notice it more particularly in a subsequent section. 
H 



Si* AN ESSAY ON THE 

SECTION y. 

Of the evidence of Revelation. 

By the term, revelation, we understand certain truths made 
known to the human mind, by the supernatural influence of the 
Divine Spirit, with a clear conviction, not only that the matters 
thus made known are true, but that the knowledge of them is im- 
mediately from God. 

They are accompanied with self-evident conviction, as first 
principles are, with this difference only, that intuitive principles 
are immediately known to be true, and those which are revealed, 
are not only known certainly to be true, but are also known to be 
immediately from God, by a supernatural communication. 
Let us consider Paul on his passage to Rome: he had 
certain evidence of the truth of these two propositions: 
1st, Tliat they were then driven and tossed upon the rolling 
hillows, by a dreadful storm. 2d, That the ship would be destroyed, 
but that the men would all escape with their lives, to the shore of a 
certain island. His knowledge of both these truths was immedi- 
ate and self-evident; it was impossible for him to be more certain 
of the latter than the former, though the latter v/as received by 
immediate revelation, and the other was a truth discovered in a 
natural way, and was as well known by every man on board as 
by himself. 

God w as as truly the author of his know ledge of the former, as 
of the latter: he gave him a natural conviction of the one, by means 
of his senses; he gave him a supernatural conviction of the other, 
by means of a divine influence upon his consciousness; and the only 
difference of the cases consisted in this, that in the latter case he 
received his knowledge by an immediate communication from his 
Maker; in the former, by that constitution of his mind, which God 
had established in his original formation. And had Paul believed 
that God stamped a lie upon his original constitution, on purpose 
to deceive him, he might with equal reason have received the pre- 
sent revelation as a lie that ought not to be regarded; for its truth 
was so essentially connected with the veracity of his senses, that 
a denial of the latter would be an equal contradiction of the for- 
mer. If it was not true that they were then tossed upon the ocean, 
it could not be true, that they would be directly removed from the 



PLAN OF SALVATION; 05 

ocean to a certain island. So that the man who discredits his 
senses and other natural faculties, gives the lie to God, as immedi- 
ately as the prophets and apostles would have done, had they re- 
fused to believe the truth of those revelations which they received. 

The ridiculous objection of scepticism will hold good in both 
cases alike; for in neither case can the absolute impossibility of 
being mistaken be made appear, in any other way than by taking 
for granted the truth of the very faculties in question. And for 
us to refuse to give them any credit, until other faculties are given 
by which to judge of their veracity, and of the abstract impossi- 
bility of their being fallacious, is nothing more nor less, than to say 
to Almighty God, " our profound and ingenious philosophy refu- 
ses to give thee any credit, till thou shalt give us other faculties 
whereby we may sit in judgment upon those which we now pos- 
sess: and as there will still be an abstract possibility that those 
others may also be fallacious, we shall require another set, where- 
by we may judge of them: and as the third set may also be falla- 
cious, we must require a fourth and so on ad injinitum,^^ Such whim- 
sical and inveterate unbelief, is not only a ridiculous insult to all 
reason, but it is a principle of deep and hateful immorality, and is, 
I presume, amain pillar of all the wickedness that ever prevailed 
in either earth or hell. 

That God is able to make such a supernatural communication 
to any human mind, is acknowledged even by Thomas Pain, and 
the fact of his having done so, is not absolutely denied by him; 
nay, it is admitted, for the sake of a case, that such revelations 
have been given; but the evidence of it, he says, can never be com- 
municated from one man to another. His words are these: " But 
admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed 
to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is re- 
velation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, 
a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be 
revelation to all those; it is revelation to the first person 
only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently, they are not 
obliged to believe it." *^ge of reason, part, l.page 8. 

That it is immediate revelation to the first person only, is grant* 
ed; and it can never become such a revelation to any other mind, 
till a similar communication from God shall give Iiim a similar 
conviction of its truth, and not of its truth only, but of the divine 
influence by which it was revealed. 

But the question is, whether a true revelation made to one man^ 
will become false by his deelarinsj it to another: and whether no 



as AN ESSAY ON THE 

evidence ought to convince the other, but anew revelation to him- 
self, to prove the reality of the one attested by his neighbour? 
That mere hearsay is not sufficient evidence, we freely acknow- 
ledge; and I presume our adversaries will acknowledge as freely, 
that a truth communicated from God to a certain person will not 
become a falsehood, when he declares it to another; of course, the 
only question which remains, is, whether sufficient evidence can 
be given to one man, that a revelation has been made to another? 
without his having it confirmed by another revelation exactly si- 
milar? 

To answer this in the negative, as Mr. Paine has done, is to 
contradict, 1st, all the evidence of common sense; 2d, the evidence 
of reasoning; and 3d, the evidence of revelation itself. 

1st. The evidence of common sense. From the signs of power, 
wisdom, and goodness, in the effect, we may infer with certainty 
that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it. This 
is a first principle, self evident to every rational being. Deny 
it, and all evidence is gone, of the power, wisdom, and goodness 
of the creator, as exhibited in the grand and intelligent arrange- 
ments of the works of creation. Deny it, and all evidence is gone, 
qf there being an intelligent creature upon the face of the earthy 
excepting the consciousness a man has of his own intelligence: for 
it is impossible for me to see another man's soul, or to know any 
thing concerning his power, wisdom or goodness, but what I learn 
from the signs of those qualities that I perceive in the effects 
%yhjch he produces. I read the works of Milton, and sir Isaac 
Wewton, ^nd infer with certainty that tlie authors were men of 
uncommon penetration: but I never saw the bodies of those in- 
genious men, much Jess their spirits, and if the axioms above 
stated, be denied, there is no evidence left that the authors of 
those works were wise men, or even that they had any author. 
The letters might have jumbled themselves together by chance, 
and formed the beautiful poem called Paradise Lost, and the same 
mysterious goddess might have made all the philosophical disco- 
veries attributed to sir Isaac Newton! 

The same may be said of a friend standing before me: I per- 
ceive the signs of intelligence in his countenance, actions, or lan- 
guage, and infer with certainty that the cause of this peculiar cast 
of countenance, action, or language, is an intelligent being. I 
cannot see that intelligence, but by the signs of it in the eftects 
produced; these signs I perceive with intuitive conviction; and if 
I resist this conviction, till I can see my neighbour's souJ, ind«. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 57 

pendent of these signs, or till the qualities of his mind be proved 
by some other argument, I may live and die in the persuasion 
that there is not a being in the world possessed of intelligence be- 
side myself: and such a persuasion, I presume, would prove that 
I possess but a very scanty share of it. 

Now unless it can be made appear, that God is not able to ex- 
hibit signs of power, wisdom and goodness, in proof of an imme- 
diate revelation given to some of his creatures, for the general 
benefit of all, equal to those which appear in the visible creation, 
nothing can set aside the conclusion, that such a revelation given 
to one man, may be proved to another, but a denial of the axiom 
above mentioned; and a denial of that, saps the foundation of all 
human knowledge, and at once precipitates us into the dark chaos, 
among the atoms and blind goddesses of atheism. 

2d. The evidence of reasoning is equally abolished by our au- 
thor's logic: for as first principles are the foundation of all sound 
reasoning, if they be denied, the superstructure must of necessity 
fall in ruins to the ground. All our reasonings concerning the 
wisdom or folly, the virtue or vice, of this or any former genera- 
tion, are sophistical delusions, if the axiom be not true, that the 
signs of such qualities appearing in the effect, affords certain eri- 
dence of their existence in the cause. 

When the Lord Jesus calmed the roaring elements, by saying, 
peace, he still, and evinced by other immediate acts of power, that 
the laws of nature were at his command, in proof of that revela- 
tion which he brought from Heaven, this, according to our au- 
thor's philosophy, would aftbrd no evidence of divine power, and 
therefore no proof of a revelation. Then the creation and preser-. 
vation of the world aftbrds no such evidence; and the building of 
houses, and otlier common effects produced among mankind, af- 
ford no evidence of human power. 

3d. As the original dictates of our faculties are thus denied, our 
author, it seems, w ould be as far from conviction as ever, if an 
immediate revelation were given, to prove the truth of our scrip- 
tures; the kind of evidence which he professes to believe alone 
sufficient: for, as a sceptic can say, how do I know it to be impos- 
sible for my senses to deceive me.'^ how do I know but the world 
sprang into being by chance.^ So might Thomas Paine have said 
of such a revelation: how do I know it to be impossible for me to 
be deceived in this' matter ? Does God address himself to my 
senses, by declaring with a voice from Heaven, that the Bible is 
true.^ but I must remember that my senses are deceitful, and are 



0& ajv essay on the 

not to be trusted. Does he address himself to my eonsciousness, 
and produce a supernatural conviction, that the Bible is true? but 
is it not possible for this to be enthusiasm? And suppose it is not, 
by what argument can I prove that my consciousness is not falla- 
cious. And suppose it is not, how can 1 prove it impossible that 
God should communicate a falsehood to me? 

And besides, if Christ could calm the boisterous ocean, either by 
imposing upon the people's senses, or by the agency of devils, 
hew do I know but this immediate communication to my mind is 
from some devil that intends to deceive me? 

Thus it is evident, that a new revelation itself, would be insuf- 
ficient to convince those who are resoJved to reject every other 
kind of evidence, and our boasted champion of reason, in his 
^'Age of Reason^^^ has contradicted reason, and boldly defied every 
kind of evidence by which truth is communicated to the human 
mind. 

Such pitiful unbelief is perfectly incurable, and if they hear not 
Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one 
rose from the dead. 

The next question is, whether God has in fact exliibited suffi- 
cient evidence for the truth of revelation? 

It is an easy thing, I know, for a person to affirm that he has 
not; and so it is for an atheist to affirm that the earth and starry 
Heavens affi)rd no proof of a Deity; or for David Hume, esq. t© 
affirm that "the slightest philosophy will soon destroy the uni- 
versal and primary notion of all men, that there is an external 
universe:" but as those philosophers affect to be so very unwil- 
ling that any thing should be taken for granted without support 
of argument, 1 hope they will excuse us from taking their asser- 
tions for granted. 

The arguments in support of Christianity are various and abun- 
dant: so much so, that my present plan will not admit of a full 
enumeration of them; but, as I have made the assertion, I must 
mention some of the grounds on which those arguments are built. 

The doctrines of Christianity exhibit the wisdom of God; its 
precepts exhibit his holiness; the benevolence of its design and 
tendency exhibits his goodness; and the miracles wrought by our 
Saviour and his apostles, displays his power and authority, as the 
fulfilment of liis promises and prophecies does his veracity and 
infinite knowledge. 

For the two first classes of evidence, we must appeal the Bible 
itself, especially the New Testament, where alone the doctrine* 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 14 

and preeepts of Christianity are to be found, and not in conclaves, 
creeds, or confessions of faith. 

For the third, we must appeal to the nature of man, and to the 
aature of those motives, enjoyments and prospects, which the re- 
ligion of Jesus proposes, to guard him against misery, to subdu» 
his vices, to sweeten his earthly comforts, to console him in cala- 
mity, to disarm the king of terrors, and to ensure him a happy ex- 
istence forever. 

For the fourth, we must appeal to human testimony, and for 
the fifth to the Bible, in conjunction with the general history of 
the world. 

As the premises of every argument must first be known to con- 
tain evidence, either as axioms or as regular deductions therefrom, 
before they can give any strength to the conclusion; so revela- 
tion must be known to be true, by its correspondence with the 
human faculties, before it can be consistently received as a ground 
of evidence to support any other truth whatever. 

Several revelations have been proposed to mankind, as being 
inspired from Heaven; but that contained in the Bible is the only 
one, that has been able to stand the test of a candid and rational 
examination. It has been examined by Jews and Gentiles, by 
friends and enemies, by priests and infidels, by the learned and 
the unlearned, by rustics and philosophers, by fools and wise men. 
Its evidence shines forth as it goes through the crucible, and it 
has carried conviction to a Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Hale, Addison, 
Locke, Littleton, Reid, Beatty, Campbell, Watts, Wesley, Fletch- 
«r, and an innumerable company besides, of the w isest and best of 
men. 

Mean time it has been contradicted by a Hobbes, Bolingbroke, 
Gibbon, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Palmer, and other metaphysicians, 
who would give us to understand, that, however this priestly re- 
velation may carry aw ay the vulgar, it has not been able to stand 
the test of philosophy. And no wonder, since earth and sea, ani- 
mals and vegetables, the bodies and souls of men, and the very 
heavens themselves, have been unable to stand this test. We 
must have a revelation made up of nothing but ideas and impres- 
sions, before it will stand the test of the metaphysical philoso- 
phy. 

But let self-evident principles resume their native dignity; 
let reason be delivered from the shackles of hypothesis and me- 
taphysical sophistry; let conscience retain her authority in the 
human bosom; let prejudice, pride and malice be laid aiiide; let 



eo AN ESSAY ON THE 

every man think for himself, without being biased by priestly ifi- 
fallibility on the one hand, or philosophical authority on the other: 
then let his mind be regulated by the calm influence of humilityj 
reflection and candour, and Christianity has nothing to fear. 
. As the diligence of his enquiry increases, the beauties of revela- 
tion will shine around him, like stars in the expanded concave of 
heaven. Let him compare the doctrine of man's apostacy, with 
matter of fact, and daily observation; let him compare the doc- 
trine of redemption with the responsibility of man, and with the 
nature and moral government of God; let him compare the digni- 
fied simplicity of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, with the nature 
of truth, reason, sincerity and moral goodness; If t him compare 
the common objections of infidels to the objections urged by athe- 
ists against the w isdom of God in the creation; let him compare 
the great prospects held forth in the bible, with his native desire 
and need of an immortal life to come; finally, let him compare 
the pure morality of the gospel, to his own consciousness of obli- 
gation to God and man; and if this holy religion, as it has been 
sometimes seoftingly termed, does not recommend itself to his reason 
and conscience in the sight of God, he may then, as an intelligent 
being, and not before, give up the Bible and go some where else to 
seek the proper knowledge of his Maker. 

I can do little more at present than suggest some of the general 
sources of evidence, w ithout pursuing them; but as infidels have 
one argument w hich they consider most masterly, it may be ne- 
cessary to dw ell upon it a little more particularly. 

" The chief support of this revelation, it may be said is that of 
miracles; of course miracles are a very essential part of the evi- 
dence on which it is to be believed; but we have seen no miracles 
wrought in its defence; therefore we are destitute of the very evi- 
dence on which your bible itself professes chiefly to rest its au- 
thority." Answer: 

It is true that miracles are essential to the giving of a revelation 
from God to man, because the very act itself is truly miraculous; it 
is also necessary that it should be delivered to others by prool of 
miracles, in order that Divine power may be manifested in its sup- 
port: but this is only a part of the evidence in favour of our reli- 
gion, and the other parts are so essential, that this alone would not be 
sutficient: for if there were no displays of wisdom, goodness and 
holiness, in the christian religion, I presume a mere exhibition of 
power alone w ould only serve to confound and astonish us. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 6X 

Suppose there were no signs of wisdom or goodness in the visi- 
ble creation, but mereJy of power, would this be a sufficient proof 
of the god whom we worship ? An Almighty God without wisdom 
and goodness, would be an object of terror and dismay, and his 
presence would be sufficient to cause men and angels to long fat 
an immediate end of their being. Rather than live under a mere 
government oi' might, where there was no moral attribute to regu- 
late the destinies of creation, every intelligent creature would 
loathe his existence, and wish to drop into the unconscious re- 
gions of annihilation. But as the powerof our Almighty Father, is 
unchangeably employed in subserviency to perfect goodness and 
infinite wisdom, we glory in his omnipotence, and rest securely 
under the shadow of his wings. 

Now a revelation from such a God must bear his image and SU' 
perscription: miracles are necessary to display his power; but the 
revelation given must also illustrate his wisdom,^and correspond 
with every moral attribute of his nature, in order to carry convic- 
tion to the soul of man, that it came from that benevolent and Al- 
mighty Being, who created the heavens and the earth, and the sea^ 
and the dry land. Miracles cannot be spared, any more than the 
signs of power can be spared, that are exhibited in the creation; 
but it is as improper to say they constitute the chief part of the 
evidence, as it is to «ay the omnipotence of God constitutes the chief 
part of his nature, or that the signs of omnipotence are the prin- 
cipal part of the evidence given of his nature, in the heave^is which 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament which showeth%is haw^ 
dy work. 

Thus we rectify the first proposition of the deistical argument, 
that miracles are the chief support of revelation. But as our 
statements imply, nevertheless, that the evidence of miracles is.a 
part of the evidence which cannot be spared, we must now notice 
their second proposition, which affirms, that all men in these lat- 
ter ages are destitute of this kind of evidence. I hope this pro- 
position may be shown to be a falsehood, and if so, their conclu- 
sion is good for nothing. 

In the days of our Saviour and his apostles, the evidence of mi- 
racles was conveyed to the minds of men, through the medium of 
their senses; in all succeeding ages the same evidence has been 
conveyed through the medium of human testimony. That a degree 
of credit is due to human testimony, has been already established 
as a first principle, by showing the palpable absurdities that Mill 
'^Uow from a denial of it; and as some philosophers have spur»- 
I 



62 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ed at this channel of communication, so they liave equally denied 
the veracity of our senses, and set all human knowledge at defi- 
ance. 

What a despicable figure will that man make who shall undertake 
t6 demonstrate that Christ miglit have imposed upon the senses of 
the thousands of mankind, in the performance of those great mira-- 
cles attributed to him in the New Testament! or to demonstrate 
that the accounts of those matters might have been written in the 
days of Augustus Cesar, at the time when the facts are said to 
have transpired, without affording the world any opportunity to 
detect such fraudulent and pitiful pretensions, which thousands of 
living witnessses could contradict in the face of heaven. 

Most of our objectors, I suspect, are beginning to be ashamed of 
this method of philosophical demonstration, and fondly hope to 
obstruct the channel of human tes^timony, by another subterfuge. 

The history of Jesus Christ say they, w as not published to the 
world till some hundreds of years after those great events- are saii 
to have occurred: it was invented in after ages, and has succeeded^ 
in imposing upon the natural credulity of the vulgar; but philoso- 
phers can see through the fraud. 

And what but hypothesis can philosophers give for this bold 
assertion ? They affect to be very fond of demonstration, and in* 
sinuate that no other kind of evidence is to be trusted; but when 
the secret is out, we find they are only fond of demonstrationy 
when something is to be proved by their opponents: when proof is 
called for, in support of their own assertions arbitrary conjee- 
tures and professions of superiority to the vulgar, appear t» be alto- 
gether sufficient. 

Those great events are said to have transpired in the reign of 
Augustus Cesar; and their own historians have informed the 
world that the Christian religion was spread through the Romaa 
empire in less than half a century afterwards: the history of those 
events, as narrated by the evangelists, declares that this religion 
took its rise from Jesus Christ, who proved its divinity by aston- 
ishing miracles wrought in the presence of thousands: this ac- 
count is true, or it is not; if it is^ all infidels are fighting against 
the truth; if it is not, then the christian religion rose from some- 
thing else, as the world very well knew; therefore, whenever this 
pretended hfstory came out, no matter when it was, every man ac- 
quainted with Christianity would know it to be a falsehoods 

If these accounts were not published, till some centuries after 
the facts are said to have taken place, every man that would open 
his eyes and read them, would see falsehood upon the face of 



FLAN OF SALVATION. 63 

iiieni, far more clearly than any man ever saw images upon his 
brain; for the authors agree to declare that they were eye witnes- 
ses of the facts that they relate, which they could not be if the facts 
oceurjred some hundreds of years before they were born. And more- 
over, they not only declare they were eye witnesses, but that they 
wrote their history and their epistles, and published them in their 
own lime: Peter, who was oue of the chief apoatles and followers 
of Jesus Christ, declares that his beloved brother Pmil had then 
published several of his epistles, which some had already begun to 
wrest, as they did also the other scriptures, totheir own destruction. 
Luke informs us, in the introduction to his historj, that several ac- 
counts of those matters had been published by others before he 
began his account; and many other references might be enumerated 
in proof that the New Testament writers openly profess to be 
eye and ear witnessses; to have lived inthedaysof Jesus Christy 
and to have published their accounts to that generation. But if those 
accounts never made their appearance in the world till some hun- 
dreds of years afterwards, in all these particulars they would car- 
ry conviction of their being the production of deceivers, to every 
man that had eyes and ears to see and hear them. 

Thus, if our objectors theory he admitted, with all their con- 
t empt of the credulous vulgar, they involve themselves in a cre- 
dulity similar to that which they so much explode; and prove 
clearly that the great Roman philosophers and historians have 
failed in the detection of a fraud that might be detected by the 
common sense of a Hottentot. 

According to the character and extraordinai*y actions, which the 
New Testament ascribes to the Lord Jesus, no person ever lived 
whose history is of sucli importance to mankind: he must have 
been the greatest and the best personage that ever appeared in 
mortal flesh, or else Christianity must be a fraud the most amazing 
and unparalleled, of any thing that has ever yet appeared among 
the human family. This religion, if true, was not hid in a corner, 
but blazed out in the face of open day: and if false, it must have 
been somehow hid in a comer, more secret, deep and obscure, than 
the fantasms of Aristotle, or the unexplored and secret dwelling 
place of the philosopher's stone. If the Lord Jesus was in fact 
controlling the elements of heaven through the land of Judea, 
and his apostles through the Roman empire, the Gospel is true; 
if they were only attempting to do such things by slight of hand 
or the art of magic, were the people's eyes, or the historian's penj 
that saeh frauds should succeed and silently glide down to poste- 



^ AN ESSAY 6N THE 

rity? If the history of those great matters was invented and pub- 
lished two or three hundred years afterwards, why did not the 
wise men of that age cast it at once into the fire, or favour the 
world w ith some account of the hypocritical stratagem? And i* 
the New Testament was really written by the apostles and evan- 
gelists, but never made its appearance till some centuries after 
they were dead, in what secret corner of the world did it lie con- 
cealed? 

Suppose a certain person, or threescore of them, united if yoa 
please, should some centuries, say four or five hundred years 
hence, publish a history of general Washington, professing 
themselves to be the authors of the history, and that they were 
officers ofthe United States army,actingforyears under his immedi- 
ate command: suppose this history should state that general Wash- 
ington professed to be the Son of God, and, in proof of it,- raised se^ 
veral dead men to life, conquered thousands of the British troops, by 
merely pointing his sword to heaven, and led his own army across 
the Delaware bay on dry ground: having first caused the waters to 
stand as w alls on either hand: would this be really such a puz- 
zling case, that all the wise men of America and Europe together 
roust necessarily fail in attempting to detect the imposture, and 
would be obliged to yield to the mighty torrent, and let the delu- 
sion descend to the latest posterity. 

Or suppose they should make Martin Luther the hero of their 
tale, or invent some other name and attribute it to a man wh» 
never existed, declaring that in and about the city of London, 
Paris or Philadelphia, he fed five thousand men with five small 
loaves of bread, cured hundreds ofthe plague or yellow fever by 
the simple touch of his finger, and raised some of them to life af- 
ter they had been four days in the grave; and finally, that he him- 
self arose from the dead, appeared to more than five hundred of 
the inhabitants, and afterwards in open daylight ascended up in- 
to heaven: — wmild it be an easy matter to establish these w on- 
ders, and spread them over the earth to the latest generations? 
If it would, let deists make the experiment, and after carrying 
their project to a sufficient height, they can lay open the secrete 
and thereby produce a stronger argument against Christianity 
than the wit of philosophers has been able to muster from the 
days of Porphyry, or Julian, to those of the heroical Thomas Faine, 

It being foreign to the present design to enter into a regular de* 
fence of Christianity, further than to take a view of revelation 
as on« of the general methods whereby the Father of the spirits of 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 65 

cdl flesh, conveys a knowledge of his truth to the human mind; 
I omit any farther illustrations of the present argument. 

Any candid mind may perceive, by reflection, that the more 
closely the subject is examined, the more manifest it will appear, 
that although miracles are not wrought in our time, yet the evi- 
dence of ihemis conveyed to us, through the channel of human testi- 
mony, as well as to the ancient Jews and Gentiles, through the me- 
dium of sensation; and he w ho rejects one of these means of com- 
munication, might as well reject the other, for 1 presume as great 
a proportion of our knowledge, depends upon the veracity of hu- 
man testimony, as upon the truth of our senses; and if we reject 
either of them, consistency will require an equal surrender of ev- 
ery other kiml of ^evidence, and thus, we must abandon our- 
selves to the regions of universal doubt, or, which is the same 
thing, to universal ignorance. 

If any should be disposed to make such a sacrifice, and give up 
all their knowledge to get clear of the restraints of reason and re- 
ligion, we must leave them in quiet possession of their retreat, till 
something more powerful than argument shall rouse them from their 
strange and philosophical delirium. The gospel has been ofieredto 
their acceptance, to use the words of bishop Watson, and from what- 
ever cause they reject it, I cannot but esteem their case to be dan- 
gerous. 

I would not be understood to mean that the evidence of miraele» 
is conveyed to us in its whole force, or in the same degree it was 
conveyed to the people in the days of our Saviour and his apos- 
tles: miracles, to them, were self-evident, being addressed imme- 
diately to their senses; to us they are ascertained by the deduc^ 
tions of reason. We take our stand on this axiom, that some de- 
gree of credit is due to human testimony; we reason concerning 
the degree that is due in this particular case; we find the number 
and character of the witnesses to be unexceptionable; we find their 
testimony accompanied \yith such circumstantial marks of vera- 
city, that we cannot suppose it false without involving ourselves 
in several unaccountable absurdities; we find the system of truth 
attested by them accords perfectly with the holy nature of God, 
and with the unbiased dictates of our reason and conscience: 
Hence, we conclude that we are compelled to renounce our reason, 
or to believe that the miracles attested by the apostles were really 
performed by our Lord Jesus Christ, in proof of that revelation 
which the goodness of God has transmitted to mankind. 

Will phil»>sopher)5 reject this evidence, merely because it is de- 



66 AN ESSAY ON THE 

rived through the medium of inference or consequential reasoniug, 
and not through the immediate dictates of sense? 

K so, it would seem that they change their ground as conve- 
niency may require: one while, they seem disposed to spurn at the 
dictates of common sense, as a vulgar kind of evidence, and must 
liave argument for every thing; but (mark their inconsistency) 
•when the subject of miracles is under discussion, they abandon 
their former ground, refuse to believe upon the mere evidence of 
consequential reasoning, and cry, Let us see miracles performed — 
let us have the sure evidence of sense, and we will then believe 
you, and not before. Let God establish the truth of revelation, 
hy an immediate communication of it to my consciousness, says 
Thomas Paine, and I will be a christian; but this is the only pos- 
sible way I can be convinced; the plainest deductions of reason- 
ing will avail nothing, however obvious and incontrovertable: and 
nothing short of immediate inspiration to my own soul, shall ever 
overcome my infidelity. And yet this is the gentleman who came 
forward in such a pompous manner, and called his feeble, though 
iingry and declamatory productions. The Age of Reason^ But with 
all his affected fondness for reason, he holds the evidence of re- 
velation to be so vastly superior, that no other kind of evidence 
<jan deserve any more regard than mere hearsay. 

Now if no other evidence is to be regarded in the case, but im* 
mediate revelation alone, it evidently follows that if the utmost 
force of evidence were given, that reasoning was ever able to con- 
vey, it ought still to be rejected. Thus is reason discarded, in our 
age of reason, and declared to be utterly beneath the attention of 
mankind. " And consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.'' 



SECTION VI. 

Tlie connexion of those three sources of evidence, and their depen* 
dance upon each other. 

Among the various mistakes and inconsistencies of mankind, 
perhaps none is of more serious tendency, than the practice of 
separating and tearing in sunder what God has joined together. 
If common sense and reason, and revelation, are really a three- 
fold method whereby truth is communicated to the human under-' 



PLAN OP SALVATION. 6T 

standing, they all tend to the same end; and for a man to neglect 
and despise one, under pretence of exalting another, is like a per- 
son neglecting the use of his eyes, in order to devote more time to 
the faculty of hearing: or like one who despises the insignificant 
sense of smelling, under pretence of improving his taste. 

We will suppose half a dozen men surround a table together, 
to partake of the blessings of providence for the refreshment and 
support of their nature: immediately they begin to dispute about 
the most proper method of eating, one contending that the use of 
a man's eyes, is mo&t essentially necessary at table, to perceive the 
food before him, and to distinguish one part from another; a se- 
cond observes, that a person's hands are most essential, without 
which his eyes can be of no service; a third insists that hands and 
eyes together might as well be neglected, and that eating depends 
ehiefly, if not entirely, upon the proper use of a man's mouth* 

While they are employed in this ridiculous contention, their 
companions, smiling at the metaphysical controversy, begin very 
deliberately to use their eyes, hands and mouth in the proper place, 
and thereby receive a sufficient supply, before the disputants have 
well adjusted the outlines of their mighty argument. 

In this manner many infidels have warmly contended that rea* 
son is our only guide to truth and happiness; some christians have 
been disposed to conclude, with equal confidence, that revelation 
is oiir only guide: while both together have agreed to reject, or ta 
devote but little attention, to the original dictates of those facul- 
ties which enable us immediately to discover all the first princi-^ 
pies of truth, and without which we couW neither reason nor re- 
ceive any evidence of revelation. 

While those persons appear to rest satisfied, on both sides,, 
each one believing with great assurance that he is in the right 
and that his antagonist is a fanatic or a heretic, it may probably 
be worth while to enquire if they be not both in the wrong, and 
whether they will ever be in the right till they consent to lay by 
the dispute, and to meet each other on tlie harmonious medium 
where imrcy and truth have met together, and where reason and 
revelation have kissed each other. I am resolved, says one, 
that '^ Righteous and immortal reason"* shall be my only 
guide, without any of your dreams and ghostly revelations. I am 
equally bound, says another, to follow the holy scriptures, as ex- 
plained by the infallible church, without bringing its mysteries to 
« The profane eye of human r£ason."t 

* Palmer. f The Popish doctor of Hp.vham^ 



«S AN ESSAY ON TttE 

And I am equally resolved, says a third, to examine vvhethei' 
the three sources of evidence above explained, be not so united that 
they must stand or fall together, and whether the opposite parties 
who attempt to separate them, be not at open or secret war, both 
with reason and revelation. I am aware that this cannot be done, 
w ithout my being stigmatized, by the one party, as a mongrel 
kind of deist, and by the other, as a dangerous enemy to " Right- 
eous and immortal reason;" but when a person is reduced to the 
dilemma of either sacrificing truth to the favour of parties, or sa* 
crificing their favour to the promotion of truth, law and gospei, 
reason, conscience and candour, all point out the path in which he 
should walk, and unanimously decide, that We ought to obey God 
rather than man. 

It has already been evinced, that reason so depends on the dic- 
tates of common sense, or in other words, upon self-evident truths, 
that is impossible for it to exist without them; a few reflections 
may now convince us, that revelation depends na less upon first 
principles, than reasoning itself. 

To exhibit this matter in the clearest point of view, it will be 
necessary to lay down three or four such principles, and appeal to 
the reader's understanding, whether revelation could afl'ord any 
evidence of truth without them. 

1st. It is impossible for God to be deceived, or to deceive othens, 

2d. The scriptures of the old and new Testament have a real and 
true meaning. 

3d. The revealed will of God consists in the doctrines which con- 
stitute the true meaning of scriptures, and not merely in the eccter- 
nal letter, or any false construction of it. 

4th. It is possible for the human mind, as it respects the essen^ 
tial doctrines of Christianity, to distinguish the true meaning of 
the scriptures, from all false interpretations of them, ivhen its fa- 
culties are rightly exercised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

These principles are self-evident, and to deny them, or any one 
of them, will be to assail the very pillars of revelation. 

As to the first one it is the chief corner stone of reason as w ell as 
revelation: for if God was a deceiver, he could stamp a lie upon 
our original constitution, and give us deceitful faculties, as well 
as a deceitful revelation. A God that made every thing, knows the 
nature of every thing that he has made, and cannot possibly be 
deceived. Men deceive one another, in order to gain something 
from one another: but a God that is independently happy in himself 
can gain nothing from others by deceiving them. That lying 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 6» 

and deceit tend to the injury of God's creatures is self-evident; 
and to say goodness can designedly injure others is a contradic- 
tion. No God but a wicked one can ever be deceitful. The na- 
ture of God is exhibited in the creation, and we need nothing 
more than to understand that nature, to perceive with immediate 
conviction, that the Being possessed of it can do no wrong, and it 
is impossible for God to lie. 

Attentive reflection may enable us to perceive this truth with 
more clearness and conviction^ it may be illustrated or set more 
fully before the mind by arguments or explanations; bnt it shines 
with irresistible splendour from the nature of God, and every ar- 
gument we use, and every truth we believe, takes it for granted, 
because they take for granted the veracity of those faculties which 
God has given us, and by which alone we reason or judge of any 
subject in the world. The more clearly we understand the na- 
ture of God, the more clearly we perceive this axiom; but though 
it may be illustrated, or set more fully before the mind, by show- 
ing its relation to other obvious truths, yet it is not supported by 
any other argument, but is itself essential to the support of 
all. 

Nothing can be the cause of itself. Every thing that begins 
to exist, must have a cause, adequate to produce the effect. AH 
signs of power, intelligence and goodness that appear in the effect 
result from those attributes which exist essentially in the cause. 
The signs of those attributes are manifest in the structure of the 
universe. The great and good Being who made this universe, 
must know perfectly the nature, properties and relations of all 
things he has made. Being infinitely happy in himself, he need- 
eth nothing that he has made. He gave life to creatures, and 
made them capable of happiness, not for his own sake, but for 
theirs. 

That conduct which tends to general happiness is right. Ged 
knows the nature of moral evil, and knows that it leads to misery. 
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 

These principles stand closely related, and perhaps one may 
be inferred from another; but each one alone, when rightly con- 
ceived, has evidence in itself that must carry conviction to every 
sound and candid mind. 

The second maxim, that the scriptures have a true meaning, is 

also self evident. It is impossible for it to be proved, or made 

fiiore evident by any particular passage of scripture; for before 

that passage can be any proof te my miud^ I nust kuew its metMr 

K 



70 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ing, and tlierefoi*e, I prove that the scriptures have a true mean- 
ing, by taking it for granted, in the very passage which I produce 
for my proof. 

That the mind or will of God, made known in the scriptures, is 
contained in their true meaning, and not in the mere letter with- 
out any meaning, or in that construction, which is false, I hope 
every person will acknowledge. To deny it, is to say that all the 
contradictory opinions in Christendom are true: for a man may 
prove every one of them by some passage in the bible; and the let- 
ter or metaphor of the text, when torn from the context, may seem 
to support the point in question. 

Our fourth maxim must also stand firm, or revelation is good 
for nothing: for to what purpose are the scriptures given to men, 
if it be impossible for them to understand their true meaning, or 
to distinguish them from falsehood? 

Here the old atheistic objection again returns upon us; it is 
possible for us to mistake the meaning of scripture, and by what 
criterion shall we determine when our views of it are correct, 
and when they are not? The same has been said, and may be 
said, of reason, sense, consciousness, and every kind of evidence 
that has ever entered into the heart of man to conceive. 

The proper and the only answer that can be given to this ob- 
jection, whether urged against revelation or reason, is, that the 
criterion or method by which we distinguish truth from false- 
hood, is the sincere and regular exercise of those faculties and 
powers of mind which God has graciously afforded us; by such an 
exercise of our intellectual powers, we shall know the truth in all 
essential matters, because God is no deceiver, but is a God of 
truth, without iniquity , just and right is he; and as to trivial 
mistakes, into which we may fall through the feebleness of our 
faculties, they will never essentially harm us if we be followers 
of that which is good. 

I am aware that such an answer as this is far from being satis« 
factory to the mind of his holiness at Rome, because it seems to 
undermine the sanctified prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. This 
blind heretic, would he say, imagines that the true meaning of 
scripture is to be sought out by his carnal reason; but he ought 
to kaow that unless he speedily and humbly yield up " the pro-! 
fane eye of human reason," to the infallible instructions of the 
Mother church, it will be necessary to subdue his obstinacy by the. 
force of the holy inquisition. But tell me, gentle reader how 
does the pope, in conjunction withhis conclave distinguish truth fr^m 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ri 

falsehood, and what is their criterion? Why, to be sure, the criterion 
of infallibility. But is their infallibility proved by the testimony 
«f revelation? If not, it must be founded upon that carnal reason, 
which supports the delusions of infidels and heretics; and if so, 
dees it not equally prove them to be infidels and heretics? If 
they learned from proof of scripture that they are infallible, 
by what criterion do they ascertain that they rightly understand 
that scripture? by their infallibility also? Then it seems they 
prove themselves to be infallible by taking for granted that they 
are so, independent of that proof; and besides, if we are sure to err 
in ourjudgments, are we not as likely to err in judging of the proof 
of their infallibility, as in any thing else? And suppose \* e take 
for granted that they are infallible, because they are pleased, 
very gravely to tell us so; how will this enable us to avoid mistakes 
any better than we can without them? for supposing their instruct 
tions to be infallibly true, as we believe the scriptures to be, are 
we not as likely to misunderstand their meaning, as the meaning 
of our saviour and his apostles? Were not all the inspired writers 
infallible teachers? they dare not deny it. Well, if Christ and 
his apostles were infallible teachers, and yet poor heretics may 
misunderstand them, they may equally misunderstand the deci- 
sions of the Holy Mother, notwithstanding her priestly infallibility, 
I rejoice that I am not in the power of the holy inquisitors, for if 
I were, their act of faith would consign my poor body to the tor- 
ments of the inquisition, and my soul would be sentenced to de- 
part, far beyond the regions of purgatory, to the dreadful " hell of 
the reprobates." 

I do not wish to dwell upon this melancholy theme; hut who can 
look back at the dark ages of persecuting bigotry without uttering 
a sigh of silent indignation, and dropping a tear of sympathy 
over the groans of bleeding humanity! Who can see the benign reli- 
gion of the Lord Jesus, thus dishonoured by its professed minis- 
ters, without feeling for the insulted honour of our gracious mas- 
ter, and for the degradation of human naturel If any person wish- 
es to be instructed in the secret mysteries of priestcraft, and the 
almost incredible extent of spiritual wickedness in high places, 
let him read the history of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, cen- 
turies. Were I to produce extracts in proof of all the abomina- 
tions of those times my book would swell into volumes; but as I 
»hall have occasion frequently to refer to their profound and cun- 
ning policy,'it may be necessary, once for all, to give a few speci- 
mens of their religious hypocrisy, wickedness and cruelty, as e\ 
hibited and handed down to u.s by difterent historia,ns. 



y^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

And first let us produce the accounts of Du Pin, who himself 
belonged to the Mother church, and therefore cannot be suspected 
of a design to misrepresent her. 

Speaking of Ratherius, who gave an account of the tenth cen- 
tury, he says, " In the second part of his treatise, Ratherius 
more particularly falls upon the immodesty of the clergy, which 
was at such a height in his time, that one could scarce find a man 
fit to be ordained a bishop, or any bishop fit to ordain others, 

" After this treatise there are five letters of his writing. The 
first is directed to Martin, bishop ofTerrara, wherein he acquaints 
lim that his clergy laid several crimes to his charge, particular- 
ly that of ordaining several infants for money." 

Speaking of one of the popes, he says, " He did not enjoy his 
dignity long: for that Sergius, whom we formerly mentioned, being 
come to Rome, seized on Christophilus, put him in prison, and 
stepped himself into vSt. Peter's chair. This man is esteemed a 
monster, not only for his ambition and the violent proceedings he 
was guilty of, but also upon the account of his loose morals. He 
had a bastard by Marosia the daughter of Theodora, who being 
a long time before highly in the favour of Adalbert, bore a great 
sway in Rome. This bastard son of his was afterwards promo- 
ted to the popedom by the intrigues of this Marosia, and took 
upon him the name of John xi. as we shall show in the sequel.'^ 

Again, a little after, he adds, " About this time Peter, arch- 
bishop of Ravenna, sent frequently to Rome a deacon of hig 
church, called John, to pay his due respects to the pope. Theo* 
dora, that impudent whore, having seen him fell desperately in 
love with him, and prevailed upon him to maintain a shameful 
familiarity with her. While they lived thus lustfully together, 
the bishop of Bolognia, dying, this John was chose in his place. 
But before he was consecrated, the bishop of Ravenna dies also, 
and Theodora prevails upon John to quit the bishoprick of Bo- 
lognia, and to accept of this archbishoprick. He thereupon re- 
turns back to Rome, and was ordained archbishop of Ravenna* 
Within a while after, the pope, (namely Landon) who had ordain- 
ed him, dies; God calling him to give an account, of his unjust pro- 
ceedings in ordaining John. Theodora upon this, that she might 
not be far from her lover, made him again to relinquish the arch- 
bishoprick of Ravenna, and to seize upon St. Peter's chair." see 
a " New Ecclesiastical history," vol, 8. London edition, page 7, 
22, by Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbon. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 73 

Thus, if we credit this learned dootor, who was a person of 
high authority in the Romish communion, the bishops, archbi- 
shops and popes, who boasted of their being vicars of Christ upon 
earth and of their being holy and infallible, were really governed 
themselves by such as this author justly calls «' impudent 
whores." 

Let us now recur to another authority. In the Biographical 
and Martyrological dictionary, we find the following account, 
among many others of the same description: 

" Another Auto de Fe is thus described by the reverend doc- 
tor Gedde, < At the place of execution there are so many stakes 
set as there are prisoners to he burned, a large quantity of dry 
furze being set about them. 

' The stakes of the protestants, or, as the inquisitors call them 
the professed, are about four yards high, and have each a small 
board, whereon the prisoners are seated within half a yard of the 
top. The professed then go up a ladder between two priests, 
who attend them the whole day of execution. When they come 
even with the forementioned board, they turn about to the peo- 
ple, and the priests spend near a quarter of an hour in exhorting 
them to be reconciled to the see of Rome. On their refusing, the 
priests come down, and the executioner ascending, turns the pro* 
fcssed from off the ladder upon the seat, chains their bodies close 
to the stakes, and leave* them. 

' The priests then go up a second time to renew their exhorta- 
tions, and if they find them inefteetual, usually tell them at par^ 
ting, ' That they leave them to the devil, who is standing at their 
elbow ready to receive their souls, and carry them with him into 
the flames of hell-fire, as soon as they are out of their bodies.' 

' A general shout is then raised, and when the priests get off the 
ladder, the universal cry is, ' Let the dogs beards be made;' 
(which implies, singe their beards) this is accordingly performed 
by means of flaming furzes thrust against their faces with long 
poles. 

< This barbarity is repeated till their faces are burnt, and is 
accompanied with loud acclamations. Fire is then set to the fur- 
zes, and the criminals are consumed.' 

" Numerous are the martyrs who have borne these rigours with 
the most exemplary fortitude: and we hope that every protestant, 
whose fate may expose him to the merciless tyranny of papists, 
will act consistent with the duty of a christian, when they consi- 



r* AN ESSAY ON THE 

der the great rewards that await them." Biog. and Mart. Dic^ 
tionary, page 292. Another description is as follows. 
" First time of torturing." 

" On refusing to comply with the iniquitous demands of the in- 
quisitors, by confessing all the crimes they thought fit to charge 
him with, he was immediately conveyed to the torture room, 
where no light appeared but what two caudles gave. That the 
cries of the suiferers might not be heard by the other prisoners, 
this room is lined by a kind of quilting, which covers all the cre- 
vices and deadens the sound. 

'' Great was the prisoner's horror on entering this infernal place^ 
when suddenly he was surrounded by six wretches, who, after 
preparing the tortures, stripped him naked to his drawers. He 
was then laid upon his back upon a kind of stand, elevated a few 
feet from the flo/ar. g 

" They beg&,n the operation by putting an iron collar round his 
neck, and a ring to each foot, which fastened him to the stand. 
His limbs being thus stretched out, they wound two ropes round 
each arm, and two round each thigh; which ropes being passed 
under the scaffold, through holes made for that purpose, were all 
drawn tight at the same instant of time, by four of the men, on 
a given signal. 

' " It is easy to conceive that the pains which immediately suc- 
ceeded were intolerable; the ropes which were of a small size, 
©ut through the prisoner's flesh to the bone, making the blood gush 
out at eight different places thus bound at a time. As the prison- 
er persisted in not making any confession of what the inquisitor 
required, the ropes were drawn in this manner four times succes- 
sively. 

'• It is to he observed that a physician and surgeon attended^ 
and often felt his temples, in order to judge of the danger he might 
be in; by which means his tortures were for a small space suspend- 
ed, that he might have sufficient opportunity of recovering his 
ipirits, to sustain each ensuing torture^ 

" In all this extremity of anguish, while the tender frame is 
tearing, as it were, in pieces, while at every pore it feels the 
sharpest pangs of death, and the agonizing soul is just ready to 
burst forth, and quit its wretched mansion, the ministers of the 
inquisition have the obduracy of heart to look on without emotion, 
and calmly to advise the poor distracted creature, to confess his 
imputed guilt, in doing which they tell him he may obtain a free 
pardon, and receive absolution. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^5 

^ Females who fall into the hands of the inquisitors, have not 
the least favour shown them on account of the softness of their 
sex, but are tortured with as much severity as the male prisoners, 
with the additional mortification of having the most shocking in- 
decencies added to the most savage barbarities." Biog. and Mart. 
Dictionary, page 293, 294. 

Another account related by Du Pin, concerning pope John the 
twelfth, is worthy of particular observation. " This man," says 
he, "was so far from having any of those qualities requisite for so 
great a dignity, that he was a monster in debauchery and irregu- 
larity. That John was not one of those, who being covered with 
sheep's clothing, are inwardly ravenous wolves; but that he -com- 
mitted publicly and in the eye of the world, diabolical actions, 

without putting himself to the trouble of concealing them That 

he had abused the widow of Ranier, Stephania his father's con- 
cubine, the widow Ann and her neice, and that he had made his 
court the very sink of debauchery. The clergy and laity then pre- 
sent [at Rome] cry'd out that they had seen him driiik a health 
to the devil, and swear by the heathen Gods in his play at hazards.^^ 
J\rew Ecclesiastical History, vol, 8, page 10, 11. 

Such are the men to whom the laity are required to yield a tame 
and a blind submission. They must not presume to use their own 
judgment, because it is possible for them to err; and when they 
are informed that the popish priesthood possess infallibility, a 
distinguishing prerogative of Almighty God, they must receive the 
holy tidings, like dutiful children, without having the assurance 
to ask for any proof of this blasphemous claim. Human reason 
is very w eak and deceitful, says the pope; therefore, lay it aside, 
and humbly receive the sure instructions of the church. The sen- 
ses are very fallacious, says the sceptic, therefore, tamely receive 
what "philosophy teaches," without presuming to call it in ques- 
tion. These gentlemen appear to agree remarkably well in their 
views; but I hope the world will learn that there is less danger of 
error in using the faculties of judging which God has given them, 
than in believing things merely because priests and philosophers 
are pleased to say they are true. 

Let us next consider whether the evidence of reasoning be also 
inseparable from that of revelation. 

Reasoning is necessary to enable us to perceive the evidence 
that our scriptures come from God, as has been shown in the case 
of miracles, and might be shown in other branches of the subject. 
Aad will a«y one say that there is no necessity for us to discover 



76 AN ESSAY ON THE 

this evidence, and that we ought to take for granted without any 
proof, that the bible is of God? If so, Mahometans ought to take 
the Alcoran for granted; and we ought all to take for granted 
that the church of Rome is infallible; for their infallibility is built 
upon this very principle. They know it is impossible for them 
to give usany^roo/of it, and therefore they think our carnal reason 
ought to take it for granted without proof. If we wish any man 
in the world to believe the scriptures without proper evidence, 
we of consequence sanction the grand principle of popery, and 
virtually declare that it is a righteous thing for them thus ta 
impose upon their unsuspecting followers. 

A point of doctrine proved by the scriptures, before the truth 
and divinity of those scriptures are ascertained, is exactly like a 
deduction of reasoning, built upon an hypothesis. As all rational 
helief in the conclusion, is proportioned to the degree of evidence 
we perceive in the premises; so our confidence in any point of 
doctrine proved by the testimony of revelation, is and ought to be 
in exact proportion to the evidence we perceive that the revelation 
is true, by which the doctrine in question is established; and if we 
encourage people to receive Christianity blindfold, without labour- 
ing to discover the evidence of its truth, we encourage the very 
principle which led philosophers to take certain hypotheses fo? 
granted, in the same blindfold manner, and to build conclusions 
upon them, till they proved that the heavens and the earth have 
no real existence. 

I write thus, not from a suspicion that revelation is supported by 
slender evidence, but from a conviction that the evidence is abun- 
dant; I wish all men in the world to examine it, the more attentive- 
ly the better; and when I see christians manifest a disposition, by 
indirect hints or otherwise, to discourage the diligent exercise of 
reason, and seem to think it unsafe to search the grounds of 
Christianity too closely, I cannot help thinking they secretly sus- 
pect our religion stands upon rather a sandy basis, and that it 
cannot well bear a close and impartial examination. 

Perhaps in this 1 am too censorious; perhaps they perceive the 
evidence of revelation more clearly than myself; but knowing the 
blindness of the human heart, they are afraid to encourage the 
use of reason among the people in general, lest they should wildly 
abuse their reason, and run into infidelity. Alas, my brother! this is 
granting deists the very thing which they contend for: this is gran- 
ting that the deists of our country have been led into infidelity, by 
reflection, or because they would think and examine for themselves^ 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 77 

and that the cause why others have not followed their example, is, 
that priests and parents have prevailed with them to guard against 
the danger of using their reason. 

I am persuaded, on the contrary, that the best method to keep 
infidelity from becoming generalin any country, is, to train the 
inhabitants from their youth, to close thinking and reasoning. If 
we endeavour to establish in them the habit of taking things fo"r 
granted without evidence, and without examination, we may in- 
deed preserve them for a while in a loose profession of Christiani- 
ty; but let it be remembered, that the wickedness and blindness 
of man's heart are not to be cured by the neglect of his rational 
faculties, but by the proper exercise of them, under the influences 
of divine grace. May a man resist the spirit in a certain method 
of using his reason.?^ so he may in the neglect of it. Is he some- 
times led astray through too much attention and thinking? and 
how much oftener through the want of it? Are some persons led 
into infidelity, who are of a reasonable turn of mind? and how ma- 
ny more who never reasoned for an hour since they were born? how 
many drunken infidels are cursing and blaspheming about the 
streets every day, who are almost as ignorant of the nature and 
grounds of Christianity as a savage? And were these witty and 
jovial deists led to disbelieve and despise the religion of their 
country, by being too much indulged in the use of their reason ? 
No: God knows if there was no other degree of reason among men, 
than the quantum of it possessed and exercised by such boasted 
free-thinkers, we should have but a very scanty pittance of it 
under the sun. 

Let any man lift up his eyes, and take a survey of popish coun- 
tries, where men for centuries have been trained up to im- 
plicit faith, and where " ignorance was the mother of devotion,''^ 
and " reason the greatest enemy tofaith.^^ What fruits have beeft 
produced by those maxims? They produced a servile and barba- 
rous superstition, under the name of Christianity, far worse than, 
paganism,* and afterwards they produced a swarm of infidels or 
open atheists. 



* Dr. Campbell, speaking of Spain, calls it " a country sunk 
in the most obdurate superstition that ever disgraced humaii 
nature." He adds, in a note, " This perhaps will appear to some 
to be too severe a censure on a country called Christian, and 
may be thought to recoil on Christianity. I do not think it fairly 
capable of such a construction. That the corruption of tihe best^ 

M4 



rs AN ESSAY ON THE 

Is it not notorious, that reason has heen subdued, and implicit 
faith instilled into the people by the priests of Rome, more than 
by any other set of men upon earth? And is it not equally noto- 
rious that greater bodies of deists now exist in popish countries^ 
than in any other countries in Christendom? Why then do we vain- 
ly imagine that we shall obstruct the progress of infidelity by 
going back to the popish standard, and by persuading God's ra- 
tional creatures that it is dangerous for them to use their reason? 
If we could persuade them to guard against pride, prejudice, hy- 
potheses, and sophistry, and prevail with men in general to exer- 
cise their reason with all possible attention and regularity, I think 
it would appear, and the discovery would become more general 
too, that popery and infidelity are really supported by the same 
weapons, and that they are both as much under the necessity of 
sneaking into dark corners to avoid the light of reason, as a bird 
of night to cower down into some deep grove, or hidden corner of 
the world, to avoid the illuminating beams of the sun as he shines 
with brilliant grandeur through the heavens. 

But man's reason, we are told, since the fall of Adam, has be- 
come so corrupt that it is a very deceitful guide. 

Does this mean that our reasoning faculties, when used in the 
best manner in our power, naturally lead us into delusion? or that 
they are as likely to lead us into falsehood as truth? If so, 1 must 
dissent from the conclusion, and maintain that true reasoning will 
no more support falsehood than it did before the fall of Adam. 

If man is greatly corrupted, and prone to run into error and 
wickedness, does it hence follow that his eyes and ears and other 



things produces the worst has grown into a proverb: and, on the 
most impartial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be found that 
any species of idolatry ever tended so directly to extirpate hu- 
manity, gratitude, natural atFection, equity, mutual confidence, 
good faith, and every amiable and gener'^us principle from the 
human breast, as that gross perversion of the christian religion 
which is established in Spain. It v^ill not surely be affirmed, 
that our Saviour intended any censure on the Mosaic institution, 
or genuine Judaism, when he said, Wo unto you, Scribes and Pha- 
risees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one prose- 
lyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of 
hell than yourselves. Yet the words plainly imply, that even pa- 
gans, by being converted to the Judaism, that was then professed, 
wf re /?mfi?e children of hell, and consequently corrupted, instead! 
of being reformed." See Campbell's dissertation on miracles^ i 
third edition, page 237. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. yo 

natural faenlties have become so corrupt that they are ne longer 
to be trusted? It does not. 

Was Adam's intellectual and moral faculties so destroyed, by 
hisapostacy, that he could no longer distinguish trutli from false- 
hood, or right from wrong? If so, wherein did he differ from a 
horse, or any other beast of the field? If he could no longer distin- 
guish between right and wrong, it was surely impossible for him 
to have any conviction of the guilt or turpitude of his past actions, 
or any sense of obligation to his maker for the future. For how 
can a creature know he has done wrong, or that he ought to do 
right, after he has lost all capacity to distinguish between them? 

Does God require cf man to follow the dictates of his reason 
and conscience, or to depart from them? If to depart from them, 
it follows that it is contrary to the w ill of God for a man to be 
conscientious; and to act according to his requirements, we must 
all act as unreasonably as possible. If he requires us to follow 
them, then to say they are deceitful, is to say God enjoins on his 
creatures to follow a deceitful guide. 

If it be objected that he has given the Bible as our guide, I an- 
swer, 1st, thousands are not in possession of the Bible; and 2d, 
those who are in possession of it cannot understand it without the 
exercise of their reason, which, if it be deceitful, will delude them 
as much in their judgments concerning the meaning of scripture, 
as in any other matters. 

If it be said, the spirit is our guide, I would ask, does the spirit 
excite us to follow the dictates of reason and conscience, or to act 
in opposition to them ? if to act in opposition to them, then we say 
the spirit will not allow men to be conscientious, and that it influ- 
ences them to be unreasonable. But if it influences us to follow 
them, then we cannot charge our reason and conscience w ith be- 
ing deceitful, without charging the Holy Spirit w ith being equally 
so, seeing it influences us to follow their dictates. 

But if reason and conscience never deceive, how comes it to 
pass,says one, that men fall into so many delusions? answ er, by ne- 
glecting or suppressing those faculties, and following some other 
guide. Does not the apostle aftirm that the woman, being deceiv- 
ed, was in the transgression? To say Eve entered into this delusion 
by following her reason and conscience, is to say those faculties 
were originally made deceitful; but if it w as by departing from 
them, to follow another guide, then rebellion against God w as a 
violation of reason: and if sin then consisted in acting against rea- 
son and conscience, why suppose its nature has since altered? 



80 AN ESSAY ON THE 

But the apostles, words are often quoted to prove that a man's 
conscience may lead him into wickedness: I have lived in all good 
conscience unto this day. Does this mean that Paul had never, to 
tliat day, done any thing for which his conscience condemned him? 
That he had laboured with the utmost candour and attention to 
know his duty in all things, and had never in his life done any 
thing which he knew he ought not to do, or left undone any thing 
which he knew he ought to do? How could he then say that he 
was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor^ and injurious? ±. Tim* 
i. 13. How could he say (ver. 15) that \\g: \\2l,^ the chief of sin^ 
ners? Did Paul really believe, with the writings of the prophets m 
his hands, that it was his sacred duty to be a blasphemer, a^erse- 
outor, and injurious? Can a man be conscious of leaving undone 
that which he knows to be good, and of doing that which he knows 
to be evil, as Paul did, and all the while hare a good conscience? 
Can a man be the chief of sinners, and live in all good conscience 
through the whole of it ? If so, the chief of sinners may assure 
himself that he is in the way to heaven, for the apostle John saith, 
if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, 
t. John iii. 21. 

The apostle's words, taken in conjunction with the context, evi- 
dently signify that he had regularly kept the Jewish law, by which 
they were then about to try him: as to this law, says he, for the 
pretended violation of which, you have bound me with this chain^ 
I hive lived in all good conscience unto this day: I have never trans- 
gressed one of those laws, upon which you hope to found a legal 
sentence against me. 

Touching the righteousness of the (ceremonial) law he was MamB' 
Zess, because he had he pi it with the most scrupulous regularity. And 
when did Paul, to the end of his life, ever blame himself for any 
violation of the Jewish or ceremonial law? Never. And why did 
he not ? Because in that respect he had lived in all good conscience. 
But did he never blame himself for persecuting the followers of 
Jesus Christ? Yes, he reproached himself with it repeatedly, and it 
was principally on this ground that he pronounced himself the 
chief of sinners. And why ? Because in this respect he did not 
live in all good conscience, as he did in respect to his keeping the 
law which they charged him with having violated. Did he ever say 
he killed the disciples of Jesus in all good conscience': So far from 
it, that he represent it as a crime so enormous, that nothing but 
the plea of ignorance eould afford any ground for him to evef 
^ope for mercy. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 8i 

It is true, he said, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to 
do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,"* but 
he no where tells us that this thought arose from either his reason 
or conscience; but on the contrary, that it arose from the most fu- 
rious prejudice and malice; " I compelled them to blaspheme," 
says he: " and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted 
them even unto strange Qities."t If we are to conclude a man's 
reason and conscience lead him astray, because he departs from 
them to follow his furious passions, may we not as well conclude 
that the devil is still following the dictates of reason, and lives in 
all good conscience unto this day ? 

But we are to take it for granted, I suppose, that whenever ^ 
man thinks a thing is right, that thought arises from his consciencej, 
and whenever he thinks a thing isfrwe, that thought arises from his 
reason. If this be so, it is plain that all mankind have regularly 
followed their reason and conscience, and nothing else, from the 
creation of the world to the present hour, in judging of what i« 
right and of what is true. 

Did Paul say, or will any man say for him, that he sincerely 
and candidly used all the means in his power to know his duty, 
and that after the most serious and dispassionate reflection, he 
really felt in his conscience that it was his sacred duty to be ejCr 
ceeding mad against the saints, and compel them to blaspheme? 

When a man calmly and candidly labours to know his duty, 
and after consulting his moral judgment, and striving to conceive 
the matter clearly, has an immediate conviction that the right of 
wrong of a certain thing is self-evident, this I understand to be a 
true dictate of an original faculty; call it conscience, or what you 
please. When he has recourse to such principles, to draw con- 
clusion from them, and prove the right or wrong of some 
other point of moral conduct, this I understand to be reason 
brought into exercise, to enlarge the knowledge we derive from 
the first principles of morality. When a man uses his utmost en- 
deavours to prove the right or wrong of a certain matter, and can- 
not find any evidence for or against it, with the help of revelation 
or otherwise, this I understand to be a matter beyond the reach of 
his faculties. And while this is the case, his doing it or leaving 
itundone is to him indifferent, because there is no moral evidence 
within his reach either for or against it. It is true, if there be 
any probable evidence, or any ground to presume that a certain 
action is wrong, a man ought to refrain from itj because where 

* Msy XX vi. 9. t *^cts, xxvi. 11, 



S2 AN ESSAY ON THE 

there is ground to doubt the lawfulness of doing a certain action^ 
there can be no hesitation as to the lawfulness of leaving it un- 
done: but where no evidence can be had on one side or the other, 
not even the slightest degree of presumptive evidence, the thing 
is perfectly indifterent, and ought so to be considered by everjr 
man till some proof shall appear to command his belief. 

Now if a man should espouse such an indifferent matter, as a 
very great duty, or abhor it as a dreadful crime, who will say h« 
is led to this by the dictates of his reason or conscience? 

The Pharisees thought they discharged a very great duty ia 
" paying tithes of mint, anise, cummin, and all manner of herbsj'^ 
they thought the disciples of Jesus were guilty of a heinous crime 
in plucking ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands, on the 
Sabbath day. Were they led to these conclusions by their con- 
science? or by their passions and superstitious bigotry? 

History informs us that some of the heathens believed it their 
duty to practise debauchery, as an act of worship or devotion to 
their gods. Were they led to this belief by following the dictates 
of their moral judgment? or by following the influence of sen* 
sual appetites? It is an easy thing for a man to bring himself to 
believe that which he strongly wishes to believe. In doing so, he 
often does violence to the first convictions of his understanding, 
and thereby establishes himself in opinions directly opposite to 
some of its clearest dictates. To say every man's opinions of 
right and wrong are formed by following the evidence of his rea- 
son and conscience, is to say no man ever resisted their dictates 
in regulating his moral opinions, and of course every sinner in the 
world has lived in all good conscience unto this day. One per- 
suades himself it is right to spend his life in gambling, which he 
calls an innocent amusement; a second believes it right to oppose all 
religion, as superstition and priestcraft; a third can see no harm 
in fornication and adultery, which he calls living according to 
onr nature. Now if those persons have formed their opinions by 
following the dictates of conscience, and have acted in conformity 
to their faith, they have surely lived in all good conscience unto 
this day. And if they followed this evidence without deviation, 
informing their judgment of right and wrong; and then regulated 
their actions according to their best judgment, shall we blame 
them for it, and say they did wrong? If so, we suppose it right 
for men to resist their conscience and labour to subdue its influ- 
ence; otherwise it cannot be wrong for them to do the contrary. 
I see uo way to avoid these consequences but to admit that men 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^3 

often form their opinions, concerning moral subjects as well as 
others, by departing from rational and moral evidence, and follow- 
ing the blind influence of prejudice and passion. Tliis being ad- 
mitted, the consequence is clear, that the absurdities and abomina- 
tions of the heathens, afford no proof of the deceitfulness of their 
reason; hui,beconiing vain in their imaginations, their foolish heart 
was darkened by yielding to the pernicious influence of lust and 
pride, vanity and superstition. 

And are we disposed to excuse them entirely, and to lay the 
whole blame on those judging faculties, which God Almighty 
gave them, and the exercise of which he demanded of them, to 
subdue their passions, and to regulate their judgments concern- 
ing truth and falsehood, right and wrong? 

Whence arises this sentiment which goes to apologise for hn- 
man depravity? Whence this inclination to undervalue the rea- 
son of mankind, and represent it as being very deceitful and fal- 
lacious in its operations? Does it arise from the supposition that 
as reason is shown to be fluctuating and uncertain, that the truth 
and certainty of revelation will appear in an inverse proportion? 
Alas, if reason be a false guide, it is as likely to bear false wit- 
ness concerning the evidence of revelation, as any thing else; for 
suppose you prove the truth and divinity of the scriptures to a man, 
by the most clear and conclusive arguments, how easy is it for him 
to reply, "It is true, sir, that you have proved this matter by very 
clear arguments; but you have often taught me to consider hu- 
man reason as being so corrupt, that it is as likely to support false- 
hood as truth; and how do I know but this is one of its deceitful 
sallies, intended to impose a false revelation upon me?" Thus the 
person furnishes a weapon against himself, and evinces that eve- 
ry attempt to demolish the evidence of reason, equally militates 
against that of revelation. 

Or, will it he said that Mr. Paine was in the right, when he de- 
clared that every man should have a new revelation, to confirm 
the old, before he is '* obliged to believe it?" If so, Paine him- 
self and every other deist in the world, is entirely excusable, un- 
less it can be made appear that any one of them has resisted the 
light of a new revelation: they have had the deceitful evidence of 
reason; but this does not render them blamable for their unbelief, 
because reason is supposed to be as apt to bear witness to a 
falsehood as to the truth; therefore an exact attention to its dic- 
tates may have led them into infidelity. 



e^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

And this is the way it seems, that we are to support the hononr 
of revehition! we must degrade and undervalue the reason of man- 
kind, under the cant names of human reason, carnal reason, and 
the like, and then to be sure revelation will shine forth, and bear 
down all before it! This poor, mean stratagem, first invented in a 
popish conclave, is so far from supporting Christianity, that it 
has strengthened the hands of our enemies, and enabled them to 
make proselytes, by proving out of our own mouths, that a man 
cannot be a christian, without degrading and renouncing his ra- 
tional faculties. 

And suffer me to repeat the question, if our rational faculties 
are fallacious, why are they not as likely to lead us astray, when 
w« use them to find out the true meaning of scripture, as in any 
thing else? If it be said the use of a man's reason is not essential 
to the right understanding of the scriptures, why do not our horses 
understand them as well as ourselves? The apostle tells us we are 
to compare spiritual things with spiritual, and it is a commoa 
maxim among us, that scripture is to be explained by scripture. 
Now what is this but proper and regular reasoning? we compare 
one passage with another, as our premises, and from the compa- 
rison, we draw our conclusion concerning the true meaning of scrip- 
ture. But if reason be deceitful, the whole of that deceit is car- 
ried into our conception of the scriptures, whenever we attempt 
to find out their true meaning. In vain may you recur to the old 
objection, that it is possible for us to be mistaken, and to take that 
to be sound reason, which is altogether sophistical; for the same 
thing may be urged against inspiration, common sense, and every 
kind of evidence in the world. K werefiise to trust our faculties, till 
some criterion be produced, to prove the abstract impossibility of 
our ever being mistaken, our case is perfectly incurable, and we 
must wander into the regions of universal scepticism, or retire to 
the bosom of popish infallibility, where the danger of our being 
deceived is tenfold more manifest than it was before. 

It will be equally unavailing to say " v\e must lay aside our un- 
certain reason, and depend entirely upon the light of the holy spi- 
rit;" for if the spirit is to give us an immediate direction in every 
thing, reason and scripture together are entirely useless. Why 
do I want a bible any more than my reason, if 1 have an internal 
guide that shows me on all occasions what is right and true? 

The holy spirit is given to assist tlie faculties of our nature^ 
but not to supersede the necessity of using them. Does God give 



PLAN OF SALVATION. sB 

his spirit to reasonable creatures, that tliey may lay aside their 
reason? Does he give a Bible <o mankind, and then give his spi- 
rit to enable them to do uithout it? Does he enlighten the eyes of 
(Mr understandings in order for us to lay our understanding by? 
Does he deiaand of us to exercise and improve our talents, and 
then give his spirit to excuse our hiding them in a napkin? Has 
he created us with active powers, that we should diligently use 
them, and afterwards given his spirit to justify our laziness, and 
to make those powers altogether unnecessary? God is not the au- 
thor of such contradictions. Man is the author of them; and 
while some whimsical enthusiasts have laid aside their reason, 
and almost taken leave of their senses, under pretence of having 
a spiritual light that rendered them no longer necessary, others 
from the same frenzy have laid aside the Bible* on account of 
the abundant revelations they w ere daily conscious of in their own 
souls, and which raised them far above the want of reason, or the 
carnal letter of the scriptures. 

Leaving those geniuses to their own "spiritual imaginations, 
we come next to consider the dependance of reason upon revela- 
tion. 

As the progressive exercise of reason enables us to carry our 
discoveries far beyond the first principles of common sense, and 
thus greatly to enlarge our knowledge; so the inestimable gift of 
revelation carries our views still higher, and enables us to make 
discoveries which reason alone could never make. This does not 
imply that our intellectual faculties are ever deceitful; they are 
always true as far as they go; but being naturally feeble, they 
cannot soar to the highest regions of truth, attainable by man, 
without the assistance of revelation. In like manner the dictates 
of common sense are always true, as far as they go; but they can- 
not bring us even to the middle regions without the help of rea- 
son: and yet their humble sphere is so very important, that with- 
out it we lose the benefit of reason and revelation together, and 
drop into the shades of universal ignorance. 

The great necessity and advantages of revelation have been ex- 
hibited by many good men, whose shoes I am unworthy to loose. 
All that is necessary on the present occasion, is briefly to meiL- 
tion a few particulars, which may serve to illustrate the mutual 
dependence of the three great sources ef evidence, whiftk is the 
design of the present section. 

* See John Nelson's Journal. 
M 



SB AN ESSAY ON THE 

Fir&t, men in general, have neither time nor talents to learn eve- 
ry thing needful to be known, by the slow and cautious method of 
reasoning, nor yet to comprehend them when exhibited by others. 
They mast of necessity devote their chief attention to the common 
labours of life, and though they are capable of reasoning, yet they 
have not time to enter into it extensively; and therefore the good- 
hessof God has given them a plain revelation, composed of truths 
the most essential that ever have been presented to the human 
mind. If they only exercise that degree of reason which is neces- 
sary to discover the signs of divine wisdom, goodness and holiness, 
that are very manifest in the scriptures, and strive impartially to 
understand them, nothing more is needful; and they have a fund of 
instruction before their eyes, adapted to every capacity. This 
point has been exhibited in a satisfactory manner by Mr* Locke^ 
and many others. 

Secondly, the doctrine of our immortality, or future existence, 
lies so deep, that few men are able to perceive its evidence by 
reasoning alone; and the most penetrating minds have found 
some remaining doubts, which nothing but revelation could re- 
move. 

Thirdly, the original cause of man's innate propensities to evil,^ 
lay hid in obscurity, and puzzled all serious minds, till it was ex- 
hibited by revelation: reason now confirms the truth of it, by de- 
ductions from matter of fact and common sense; but that the first 
man involved his posterity in this wretched state, by his rebellioH 
against God, would yet have remained a secret, had no revelation 
from God been given to mankind. 

Fourthly, the peculiar kindness of God towards the children of 
men and his, deep interest for their eternal welfare, is a pure dis- 
covery of revelation. Without it, we should be totally ignorant 
whether God would ever pardon our transgressions or not, and 
equally so, respecting the method his wisdom has adopted to 
make that pardon accord with the pure and righteous principles 
of his moral government. But, Jesus is the light and the life of 
men; and this life and immortality have been brought to light by 
the gospel. 

Fifthly, our need of a divine influence to assist our facultiegf 
together with God's willingness to grant us the aid of his holy 
spirit, we learn from the holy scriptures; and without a revelatioB 
from God, of some kind, all our views of this matter must have 
been merely hypothetical. 

Sixthly, the existence of other orders of intelligent creature* 



PLAN OF SALVATION. e7 

w«uld have remained unknown to us, or at best bu^ barely proba- 
ble, had not God condescended to inform us in a supernatural way. 
Now we know that we have brethren in some other region of the 
Tiniverse, to whose society our heavenly Father intends to raise 
us, if we act well our part in this state of probation. AYe learn al- 
so, that there are other wicked creatures in the universe beside^ 
ourselves; that they have power to suggest evil thoughts to our 
minds, in some way unknown to us; and that it is a matter of great 
consequence for us to set a pr^>per guard upon our thoughts and 
most secret desires. These are mailers of infinite concernment, 
on which our virtue, tranquillity and future blessedness, materially 
depend. 

Lastly-, w ithout revelation we could never have known the iu- 
tention of God to raise our bodies from the grave, to renew the 
face of nature, and to make new heavens and a new earth wherein 
righteousness shall dwell. The gloomy thought might have ac- 
companied us through life, and we could recur to nothing but con- 
jecture to remove it, that the present wretched state of things 
would continue forever: that our descendants, in succession, and 
all the innocent animals througJi the earth, and air, and water, 
would be a prey to misery, bloodshed and dissolution, to all eterni- 
ty. But revelation brightens the prospect before us, and casts 
death and misery " into the back ground of the scene." It invites 
man to act up to the proper dignity of his nature, gives him assu- 
rances of every necessary aid, and stimulates him by prospects, 
calculated to rouse into action all the intellectual and moral fa^ 
culties of his soul, and which are every way worthy the wisdom 
and goodness of God. In a word, every thing contained in this 
heavenly system, is friendly to virtue and human happiness, and 
BO man, but a wicked one, will find any thing in it to terrify or 
alarm him. 

Those points, and many others, might he pursued to great ad- 
vantage; hut these hints may suffice to show the connexion of 
reason and revelation, and their mutual dependance upon each 
other. 

He that rejects revelation because he possesses the light of 
reason, is like an astronomer who casts all his telescopes into the 
gea, because he has eyes, wherewith he may behold the stars or 
celestial planets. He who neglects and despises reason, because 
he has revelation, is like an astronomer who blindfolds his eyes 
under pretence of honoring and exalting his telescopes. He who 
uses them in harmony, is like an astronomer who makes a proper. 



38 AX ESSAY ON THE 

use of his eyes and telescopes together, without ever dreaming 
that either of them can be spared or neglected, except by an ig- 
noramus that is unacquainted with their utility. For we all ^ 
with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of th-e Lord, are 
changed into the same image, from glory to glorij, even as by the 
Spirit of the Lord. 11. Cor. Hi. 18. 

The objections commonly urged against one of those means of 
knowledge, are equally applicable to the other. 

Is reason in the hands of depraved and fallen creatures.^ so is 
revelation. Are we liable to mistake the voice of reason? so we 
are the voice of revelation. Have men perverted the faculties 
of reason, till they have bewildered themselves and those who 
heard them? so have men wrested the scriptures, even unto their 
own destruction. Has a confused system of foolish opinions been 
long prevalent in the world, under the name of reason and philo- 
sophy? so have as foolish and as wicked system's long prevailed 
in the world, under the name of Christianity. Are there many 
contradictory opinions which claim the support of reason? so there 
are many as contradictory which claim the support of revelation. 
Have many deists pretended to be led to infidelity by /o?/oiri«^ 
their reason? so they have pretended to be led into it by reading 
the scriptures. Is reason unable of itself, to eifect and change the 
heart of man? so is revelation. AVho can forgive sins but God 
only? 

They also have the same recommendations. Is revelation the 
gift of God? so also is reason. Does revelation appear to better 
advantage the more its nature and principles are examined? so al- 
so does reason. AVas revelation intended for the instruction and 
happiness of mankind? so also was reason. Is revelation opposed 
to all foolishness and wickedness? so also is reason. Does the 
apostle say his opposers were enemies of the gospel? so does he say 
they were wicked and unreasonable men. Does the psalmist say the 
law of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes? so does the apostle 
say it is our reasonable service. Does the apostle caution us against 
vain philosophy and science falsely so called? so he does against 
false apostles, deceitful workers, who would transform themselves 
into the apostles of Christ. Are ice commanded to search the scrip- 
fuj'^s.and study them diligently? so we are commanded to be always 
•ready to give every one an answer, that asketii us a reason of our hope. 

It is true the apostle opposes the wisdom of this world, and 
says it is foolishness w ith God: but he no where opposes reason, 
fnd I hope no one will charge him with saying any part of truth 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 89 

is foolishness with God. It is a dangerous thing, you say, to blend 
philosophy and Christianity together, and the very way our reli- 
gion was at first corrupted, was partly by connecting it with the 
heathen philosophy, and partly by bringing into the profession 
of it, the miserable superstitions of their idolatrous theology. I 
believe this account is perfectly correct; but do you therefore in- 
fer that reason is a very dangerous guide? It seems then, you are 
entirely satisfied that Aristotle's philosophy, and the superstitious 
theology of the Pagan priests, were altogether founded upon truth 
and reason! 

If the heathen philosophy or theology were true, and the gospel 
true, what injury would result from their being brought together? 
Does one truth contradict another, or must we really take for 
granted that one truth added to another, will produce a falsehood? 
Until I be prevailed on to admit the ridiculous hypothesis that one 
part of truth is injured and destroyed by another, I must be per- 
mitted still to believe that no philosophy that is false, was ever 
supported by reason, and none that is true was ever unfriendly to 
the gospel. 

The vain philosophy and wisdom of this world which St. Paul 
so justly reprobated, w as science falsely so called, i. e. it did not 
consist in real knowledge, which has the first principles of truth 
for its foundation; but it consisted in a system of fantastical opin^ 
ions, built upon unsupported hypotheses, that were invented by 
the vanity and roving imaginations of men. All this was foolish- 
ness with God, because it was real foolishness in itself. The judg- 
ment of God is according to truth, and he pronounces a thing to 
be foolish because it is so: he never cautioned us against any 
branch of truth, because falsehood is dangerous; or against the ex- 
ercise of reason, because it is dangerous for men to be unreason- 
able. These inconsistencies belong not to God, or to his inspired 
apostles: we have secretly and inadvertently borrowed them from 
the dark stratagems of popery, and as sure as God is the author 
of reason and revelation, and as truth is consistent with itself, 
no branch of human J^nowledge will ever be supported by one and 
contradicted by the other. 

L^pon the whole, I conclude, Shat common judgment, reason and 
revelation, are three that bear record on earth, and these three 
are so inseparably united that we cannot abandon any one of them 
without taking leave of the other two, 



n AN ESSAY ON THU 

SECTION VII. 

Of analogy and presumption. 

Having examined the three chief sources of human know- 
ledge; it may be worth while to inquire whether there be any 
other method of discovering truth, that is not comprehended is 
any one of the foregoing means of instruction. 

I am unable to conceive any thing else, that has even the ap- 
pearance of evidence, excepting it be the subject of analogy; and 
a close inspection of this will convince us, I think, that analogy 
is properly comprehended under the foregoing division. It affords 
a self-evident probability, and thus comes under the province of 
common or intuitive judgment: and Mhen we reason upon this 
ground, we may be led to many probable conclusions: but if our 
first principle be only probable, there is nothing more than pro^ 
bability in any conclusion deduced from it by regular reasoning. 
Let it sutfiee to illustrate this matter by three examples. 

1. There is a self-evident probability, from analogy, that the 
other plajiets around our sun are the habitations of some kind of 
living creatures. We see that our earth abounds with various or- 
ders of animals, possessing life; and astronomers have proved by 
very clear evidence, that the other planets are very large bodies, 
like this which we inhabit; hence, we immediately perceive that 
there is a very strong probability that those vast bodies do not roll 
through the heavens for nothing, any more than the world in 
in which we live, but that they minister to the happiness of living 
creatures: this is called reasoning from analogy; but the first 
principle of this reasoning is self-evident. How did we learn, or 
how can we prove, that if one thing is known to resemble another, 
in some particulars, it probably resembles it in some others that 
are unknown? AVill you say from experience? 1 answer, the infe- 
rences we draw from experience, are built upon the same analogy; 
I know by experience that day and night have succeeded each 
©ther, without intermission, for thirty years: hence, I conclude, 
that for thirty years to come, the same uninterrupted regularity 
will continue. But this conclusion is not certain, and for aught I 
know to the contrary, the sun may be darkened, and the moon with- 
draw her light, in less than thirty years from this day. Can any 
philosopher demonstrate the contrary? He cannot. The conclu* 
sion is only probable, because it is built on a first principle deri-^ 
red from analogy, wlych affords no othep than probable evidence; 



PLAN OF SALVATION. »i 

£, It 19 very probable that the republic of America, will somfe 
liine be changed into a monarchy. Yet it is not certain that it ever 
will, because the conclusion is only built upon the analogy of hu- 
man nature, and the practice of former ages in different parts of 
the world. 

3. There is a self-evident probability that if God should give 
another revelation to mankind, it will also be attended with cer- 
tain difficulties, which could only be solved by candid and patient 
reflection, and that it would contain some mysteries beyond the 
grasp of human understanding. This conclusion is also draw-n 
from analogy. The works of creation, the course of providence, 
the law of Moses, the gospel of Christ, and every part of the Al- 
mighty^ works from the beginning of the world unto this day, are 
of this description. They are full of difficulties, and even contra- 
dictions, in the judgment of those who are too proud, too merry, 
or too slothful to examine them; but to the candid and sincere, 
those difficulties only afford matter of diligence, and uselul 
improvements, while the incomprehensible parts afford matter of 
humility and just veneration for that infinite being, who cannot 
be completely comprehended by any finite understanding. But 
that another revelation, would exactly resemble the foregoing in 
those particulars, is only probable: God may hereafter change 
the state of the world, and the nature of man's probation; the 
powers of evil may be so subdued, and virtue and piety so esta- 
blished, that the same degree of laborious thinking may not be 
required, that is now needful for mankind; and in such a state of 
things, a revelation may be given, the evidence and principles of 
which will be perceived in a more immediate and intuitive way, 
without the slow method of comparison and consequential rea- 
soning. 

The probability arising from analogy, is sometimes called j^re- 
sumptive evidence. When men are cast into prison, there is a pre- 
sumption that they will try to make their escape, because the 
supposition accords with the analogy of nature; and if they de- 
clare they will not go away from the prison, we are not disposed 
to leave the doors open upon the strength of their promise, because 
there is too strong a presumption against them. 

When events are related by any person that are very extraor- 
dinary, and not according to the common analogy or resemblance 
of occurrences which the events of one age or country bears to 
those of another, there ariseth a presumption against the truth of 
his relation. But this presumptiou can never ri^^e liigher than pro- 



92 AN ESSAY ON THE 

bability, and totally disappears when combatted by positive 
evidence. 

If an individual should fell rae he saw my friend yesterday, who 
died more than a year ago, and conversed with him for half an 
hour, the presumption would be so strong against it, that I should 
be apt to question the fact; but if twelve men whom I could name, 
should corroborate his testimony and declare solemnly that they 
were present in open daylight, and conversed with my deceased 
friend for half an hour, 1 could no more disbelieve them than I 
could give up all confidence in my best tried friends and acquain- 
tances on earth. 

AVhen the first astronomer informed his contemporaries, that 
he could name the precise minute, for mouths beforehand, when 
there would be an eclipse of the sun or the moon, there was a 
strong presumption that it was mere conjecture; but the evidence 
of sense has fully convinced the world, that truth may stand di- 
rectly opposite to the highest probabilities that are only presump- 
tive; and of course, the probabilities arising from analogy, should 
only be credited when there is no clear evidence against them, and 
pot even then with a belief too decisive and dogmatical. 

Infidels appear to be governed in their peculiar opinions, chief- 
ly by analogy and presumption. They will not believe that man 
was ever in a state of innocence and perfect happiness, or that the 
elements of nature were ever different from their present arrange- 
ments: they will not believe a revelation was ever given from 
heaven: they will not believe miracles were ever performed: they 
will not believe any prophecy concerning a different state of the 
world in future: they will not believe the christian doctrine of a 
future state, or that mankind will ever be raised from the dead. 
And why all this unbelief? Is it for want of evidence? not at all: 
the evidence is so clear that they have to do violence to their rea- 
son to resist it; but they have contracted an almost unconquerable 
fondness for analogy and presumption, which they strain to the 
uttermost, and prefer to the plainest and most conclusive deduc- 
tions of reason. 

If we follow the dictates of common sense and reason, and be- 
lieve the truths supported by them with corresponding confidence^ 
tliey call us dogmatical. They are resolved, if we believe them, "to 
hold themselves in that state of doubt, and suspense of judgment, 
which is so becoming in a philosopher." But that sceptical doubt 
is only indulged, it would appear, when religious matters are in 
q^uestion: ia matters ccntvary to religioa, they seem so very dog- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 113 

teatical, that they are bent upon a most obstinate adherence to 
their opinions, in opposition to all reason, when a bare presump* 
tion would be their only ground of credence, if there was no tes- 
timony against them. 

Mr. Hume says " Ji wise inan will 'proportion his belief to the 
evidence.^^ I presume this philosopher never spoke a more im- 
portant truth; and if all men would follow it, there would be 
a death blow given both to the sceptical and dogmatical spirit, 
which equally offends against this axiom. The former, consists in 
giving a less degree of credit than the evidence requires, and the 
latter, in giving a greater; and it is as hard to determine which is 
the more dangerous or irrational, as it is to determine which of 
two travellers whom a third conducts through an unknown desert, 
most effectually loses the benefit of his guide; the man who runs 
on before him, or the one who loiters in the woods behind. 

Scepticism and dogmatism both consist in believing without 
evidence: the former, in believing a subject is doubtful when there 
is no evidence of its being doubtful, the latter in believing a sub- 
ject to be certain, when there is no evidence of its certainty. He 
who believes any proposition with the confidence of certainty, 
which has no foundation but analogy, is very dogmatical; he who 
doubts of a truth that is self-evident, like that of his own existence, 
is equally sceptical; and it is no uncommon thing for those ex- 
tremes to meet in the same person. 

Infidel philosophers have doubted the present existence of the 
world; they have doubted the evidence of sense and all human 
testimony; they have doubted " the axioms of mathematics:" and 
yet those very men have believed with great confidence, that th^ 
course of nature has uniformly been the same from the beginning 
of the world, that no miracle was ever wrought, and that no rere- 
lation was ever given from God to man. Now if we had no man- 
ner of evidence that such things ever did occur, the sole evidence 
we could have that they did not, would only be presumptive, and 
therefore in its very nature doubtful: from the analogy of nature, 
so far as it has come under our observation, we would presume it 
has always been the same; and if mankind in former ages had seea 
astonishing miracles, we would presume again, from the analogy 
of human nature, that they would transmit accounts of them to pos- 
terity; but how can it be demonstrated, or proved by any other 
argument, either that the course of nature has been the same from 
the creation, or that mankind in former ages, were as much dispo- 
sed to transmit accounts of miraculous facts to posterity, as the 
N 



94 AN ESSAY ON THE 

men of this generation? It is impossible for our objectors to pro- 
duce any such proof. 

Will they affirm then, tliatthe thing is self evident? That there 
is a self-evident irrohahility of it, is granted; but this implies a de- 
cree of uncertainty; and if such uncertain analogies are among 
their most confident opinions, let the world judge who are the men 
that properly merit the charge of being dogmatical. 

Thus it appears, if we had no positive evidence that a miracle 
was ever wrought, the contrary would be a proper subject of that 
doubtful kind of belief, or suspense of judgment, in which our 
philosophers affect to glory, and upon which they congratulate 
each other, on their freedom from vulgar prejudices; but what 
shall we say of their dogmatical spirit, when we see them adhere 
to their presumptions in opposition to proofs and arguments the 
most convincing and indubitable? 

Will they say a presumptive probability can never be overcome 
hy any other evidence? And suppose an army of seven thousand 
men should conquer an army of ten thousand, both to all appear- 
ance equally prepared for the battle, the like of which has some- 
times happened; will any one say there was no ground to presume 
that the army of ten thousand would be victorious? or, that this 
presumption ought to be adhered to, with obstinate perseverance, 
in opposition to all the evidence of sense, or of human testimony^ 
that could be brought against it? 

When the strange influence of the loadstone was first discover- 
ed, it had to combat as strong presumptions from analogy as any 
miracle whatsoever: and will our opponents insist that no evidence 
should influence us to relinquish our belief of such uncertain proba- 
bilities? Then all navigators and philosophers are fools for believ- 
ing in the mystery of magnetism, which, like miracles, suspends 
the law of gravitation. 

To this might be added the innumerable mysteries of mechanical 
operations and chemistry, many of which are so opposite to the 
whole course of my experience, at least, and have such strong pre- 
sumption against them, that I might justly consider them as very 
doubtful matters, were they not confirmed by the testimony of men 
whose veracity cannot be doubted. 

But perhaps I am mistaken all this while, in taking for granted 
that our sceptical philosophers, who have doubted the very exis- 
tence of earth and heaven, were at the same time very dogmatical 
in opinions founded upon mere presumption. It cannot be possible 
says a serious enquirer, that they only doubted of some things 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 95 

and in others were as confident as otlier people: much less, that 
their doubts arose in proportion to the strength of the evidence, 
and that tliey chose always to be confident, where there was no ev- 
idence, but some uncertain probability! AVas it not their grand 
maxim that "all things are equally doubtful?" 

I answer, this was indeed their ijrofessed maxim, but their own 
writings, as well as their actions, will prove that they considered 
themselves at liberty to depart from it, whenever it might suit 
their convenience. I desire no better testimony in the case than 
that of Mr. Hume himself. Every one acquainted with his phi- 
losophical writings, knows that he not only professed to doubt, or 
disbelieve, the existence of God, angel and spirit; but that he doubt- 
ed the existence of earth and sea, and laboured to prove that there 
is no certainty in mathematical demonstration. And is it possible 
that this same gentleman had at the same time, some very dogma- 
tical opinions? Hear his own words: 

" The violations of truth" says he, " are more common in the 
testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning 
any other matter of fact." And did not our philosopher believe 
this proposition very confidently} So much so that he immediately 
adds, "This must diminish very much the authority of the former 
testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend 
any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it may be co- 
vered."* 

From this we may perceive with how much confidence Mr. Hume 
believed " that the course of nature had been uniform from the 
beginning, and that no religious miracles m as ever wrought." His 
belief in this was so dogmatical, that it led him to " form a gene- 
ral resolution" to reject all evidence against his opinion, and 
" never lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it 
may be covered." 

Thus, you observe, his " sceptical doubts and suspense of judg- 
ment," are only resorted to Mhen those subjects are introduced, 
concerning which he chuses to doubt or disbelieve; but when evi- 
dence is to be brought against the beloved presumptions, founded 
on analogy, the boasted " suspense of judgment" is laid aside, and 
" a general resolution" substituted in its place, " never to lend 
any attention" to the evidence, but to adhere to his own dogmas 
with the unshaken firmness of a popish inquisitor. 



* See his Essay on Miracles, page 304; and Dr. Campbell's an- 
swer, p. 102, 



96 AN ESSAY ON THE 

In another part of the same essay, he says, " No testimony for 
any kind of miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability, 
much less to a proof." 

These instances, to which many of a like nature might be ad- 
ded, seem indicative of very strong faith: and our wise men, it ap- 
pears, who have so much complained of the blind credulity of the 
vulgar, are found to be as resolute in their belief as their honest 
neiarhbours. Their inconsistencv would not be so intolerable, if 
they could be prevailed on to believe their own senses, and the 
common dictates of reason; but instead of this, they turn humau 
knowledge upside down; in matters that are self-evident, they glo- 
ry in being doubtful, and only become confident in those cases that 
are naturally dubious and uncertain; and which is worse than all, 
they carry their immovable faith so high as to resist every kind 
of positive evidence, and resolve not to give it a hearing. But it 
is not a little surprising, that the same persons who in general man- 
ifest such a violent fondness for analogy, abandon this ground 
entirely, when it suits their purpose, and draw conclusions in di' 
rect opposition to it. Almost the whole of that knowledge which 
ive denominate experience, depends upon the veracity of our sen- 
ses: it is derived through the medium of smelling, tasting, feeling, 
seeing, and hearing. There is a regular uniformity in the opera- 
tions of these senses through the general course of our lives, and 
we daily find the objects around us to be what they are represent- 
ed to be by this uniform experience. Our senses never cause us 
to take fire for water, or water for fire. When my eyes testify that 
one man alone conies into my room, I always find there is but one, 
and I am in no danger of mistaking him for a company of five, 
seven, or ten. And so of other things. 

Now if a mail declare he saw a miracle performed; that he saw 
for instance, a person standing by the sea side, who commanded a 
tree to be plucked up by the roots, and be removed into the sea, 
and it instantly obeyed him; there would be a strong presumptioH 
against the reality of this fact. Wby.^ Because of its being so con- 
trary to experience: i. e. contrary to what we have generally seen 
and heard. And suppose another man should testify of a certain 
particular case, in which his senses actually deceived him, and 
their regular dictates led him to believe a falsehood; there would 
be precisely the same presumption against the reality of this fact. 
Why? Because it would be equally opposite to the general course 
of our experience. What ought we then tc do w ith these extraor- 
dinary cases.^ We ought surely to withold our assent, till the fa,^.s 



PLAN OF SALVATIOK or 

be supported by clear and convineing evidence, that would bear 
the closest scrutiny and inspection. Then, as reasonable beings, 
we should yield to the conclusion, without making any arbitrary 
additions to it: we should believe that in cases thus authenticated 
miracles had been wrought, and the senses of men had deceived 
them. 

But what is the conduct of our infldel philosophers in these 
matters.^ The most inconsistent that can be imagined. In case of 
miracles, they refuse all evidence a fair hearing, and pretend that 
no proof is able to evercome the presumption arising from common 
experience; but as to those particular facts which are produced 
as intances of " fallacy in the senses,'* they not only give them a 
ready hearing, but entirely abandon the presumption arising from 
common experience, and draw a conclusion in direct contradiction 
of iti They grasp the new circumstance with uncommon fondness 
and not only believe it with a superficial examination, but leap 
into the wide conclusian, that a.11 other cases are of the same na- 
ture.* If the senses deceive us in one thing, say they, why not in 
all.'' It appears then, that if we could once prevail on those sages 
to believe a miracle had ever been wrought, they would instantly 
conclude that all men are working miracles every hour of their 
lives. If the laws of nature have been suspended in one case, why 
not in all.^ If one part of matter (the loadstone) can counteract 
the law of gravitation, why not all parts? If the sun was eclipsed 
on one certain day, why not every day.'^ If a certain medicine 
should cure the yellow fever in one case, why not in all cases? 
and, to put an end to the queries, we might add, if one man should 
happen to be an idiot, why not all men. 

If instances are produced, of certain particular cases in which 
the testimony of sense is fallacious, the only fair conclusion of 
reason would be, " that in some rare cases our senses may deceive 
■us:" and if our opponents will produce instances of the kind, which 
will bear as close inspection, as the miracles ascribed to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, I, for one, will yield to the conclusion; but I hope 
they will excuse every man who understands the principles of rea- 
soning, from drawing an universal conclusion from premises so 
particular, that they have to explore the most hidden secrets of 
nature to find any one instance, but such as may be detected in 
half an hour, and shown to be no fallacy of the senses. 

Dr. Reid has convinced me, that the great complaint concerning 
the fallacy of our senses, is a mere fiction of philosophers; and 1 



See Berkley and Hume. 



98 AN ESSAY ON THE 

eannot lielj3 being doubtful (which they say I ought always to be) 
whether they be able to produce a single instance that will bear 
examiuation. ^ 

; "Complaints of the fallacy of the senses," says Mr. Reid,"have 
been very common in ancient and in modern times, especially 
among the philosophers; and if we should take for granted all 
that they have said on this subject, the natural conclusion from 
it might seem to be, that the senses are given to us by some ma^; 
iiguant daemon on purpose to delude us, rather than that they 
are formed by the wise and beneficial author of nature, to give 
us true information of things necessary to our preservation and 
happiness. 

Many things called the deceptions of the senses are only con- 
clusions rashly drawn from the testimony of the senses. In these 
cases the testimony of the senses is true, but we rashly draw a 
conclusion from it, which does not necessarily follow. We are dis- 
posed to impute our errors rather to false information than to in- 
conclusive reasoning, and to blame our senses for the wrong con- 
clusions we draw from their testimony. 

<' Thus, when a man has taken a counterfeit guinea for a true 
one, he says his senses deceived him; but he lays the blame where 
it ought not to be laid: for we may ask him, did your senses give 
a false testimony of the colour, or of the figure, or of the impress- 
sion? No. But this is all that they testified, and this they testified 
truly: from these premises you concluded that it was a true gui- 
nea; but this conclusion does not follow; you erred therefore, not 
by relying upon the testimony of sense, but by judging rashly from 
its testimony: not only are your senses innocent of this error, but 
it is only by their information that it can be discovered. If you 
consult them properly, they will inform you that what you took 
for a guinea is base metal, or is deficient in weight, and this can 
only be known by the testimony of sense. 

" I remember to have met with a man who thought the argu- 
ment used by protestants, against the popish doctrine of transub- 
stantiationfromthe testimony of our senses, inconclusive; because, 
said he, instances may be given where several of our senses may 
deceive us: How do we know then that there may not be cases 
wherein they all deceive us, and no sense is left to detect the fal- 
lacy? I begged of him to know an instance wherein several of our 
senses deceive us. I take, said he, a piece of soft turf, I cut it 
into the shape of an apple; with the essence of apple I give it the 
smell of an apple; and with paint, I give it the sjiin and colour of 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 99 

an apple. Here then is a body, which, if you judge by your 
eve, by your touch, or by your smell, is an apple, 

<' To this I answer, that no one of our senses deceires us in this 
case. My sight and touch testify that it has the shape and colour 
of an apple: this is true. The sense of smelling testifies that it 
has the smell of an apple: this is likewise true, and is no decep- 
tion. Where then lies the deception? It is evident it lies in this, 
that because this body has some qualities belonging to an apple, 
I conclude that it is an apple. This is a fallacy, not of the senses, 
but of inconclusive reasoning."* 

This candid and ingenious author examines various other 
grounds of this charge against the veracity of the senses, and 
shows that they are rash conclusions, founded on our ignorance of 
the laws of nature-, and makes it appear that though our senses, 
like all our other faculties, are naturally weak, and subject to 
accidental disorders, yet no case has been produced in which, 
upon careful examination, our senses has given deceitful tes- 
timony. 

It is true, that in some cases the representation of one sense, 
(that of sight for example) if we judge from the first appearances 
of things, will lead us to a false conclusion: but is it the part of a 
philosopher to draw his conclusions from the first appearance, or 
from that view that is acquired by a patient examination.'^ If we 
take no pains to examine, but draw our conclusions from the first 
superficial glance, we may take a sophism for a sound argument, 
and then declare that our reason had deceived us; or we might 
draw a rash conclusion from the first view of scripture phrases, 
and then say the oracles of God are fallacious, and the apostles 
have deceived us: but these conclusions, though exactly similar 
to those which are brought to discredit the senses, would excite 
the just indignation of any person of common reflection; he would 
instantly see that the delusion of whicli we complain, was brought 
on, not by any deceit in our faculties, or in the scriptures, but by 
our own voluntary ignorance and want of thought. 

I will suppose an Indian from tlie western woods, comes into our 
civilized region, and, among other curiosities, he is struck with 
the appearance of a man standing behind a looking glass: he gazes 
awhile with silent astonishment, thinking one of his red brethren 
is really standing before him. This man's senses, you say, have 
deceived him; he thinks there is a'glass window in the wall, and 
that he sees a real man standing in a room on the other side. 

* Reid's Essays, vol. 1. page 288 — 391. 



1.0O AN ESSAY ON THE 

A philosopher accosts him, and says, '• you must know, unlearn- 
ed stranger, that there is no real man behind that walls your sen- 
ses are altogether fallacious, and I counsel you to take \yarning 
from this plain example: lay aside your vulgar and dogmatical 
confidence in sensation, and learn to follow the noble guide of 
reason! 

Indian. " Pray Mr. Philosopher, how do you prove by reason^ 
that there is no real man standing before me?" 

Fhilo. " I know there is not: I am certain of it." 

Indian. " Is this Avhat you call giving a reason, that you know^f 
and that you are certain?-^ 

Fhilo. " No: but it has been proved a thousand times, and every 
body in our country knows it to be as I tell you." 

Indian. " If it has been proved a thousand times, you can sure- 
ly prove it once: I want to know what is the argument which 
proves that this is not really one of my red brethren from some of 
our towns." 

Fhilo. " You may plainly ^ee, by observing the motions of that 
supposed man, that it is nothing but a figure of yourself: if you 
raise your hand, or move any other part of your body, you w^ill see 
that figure imitate all your actions exactly." 

Indian. " Do you call it offering a reason then, to tell me I can 
plainly see? did you not just now^ declare that my sight is deceit- 
ful, and ought not to be trusted.^ And now^ you appeal to my fal- 
lacious senses, and call this offering a reason!" 

Fhilo. " But if you will be at the pains to take down this glass, 
vou may both see and feel that there is nothing but a solid wall be- 
hind itc therefore it is not possible that you could have seen any 
other man but the figure of yourself." 

Indian. " It is true, I both see and feel that there is nothing be- 
hind this glass but a solid wall; but you say my senses are de- 
ceitful: how do I know then but that there is really a window 
through the wall, and a man standing on the other side, notwith- 
standing what I see arndfeel? you first tell me my senses deceive 
me, and propose to prove it by reason: and then you turn about 
and appeal to my senses for the proof! I suspect sir, that you are 
deceitful, and that I shall gain more wisdom and happiness by 
trusting my senses, then by following your shuffling and contra- 
dictory counsels." 

Thus it evidently appears that reason does not correct the sup- 
posed fallacy of the senses; but we are indebted to the testimony 
of the senses for a correction of tho«e fallacious conclusions which 



PLAN OF SALVATION. tOi 

are bastily drawn from the first appearance of things. As to the 
pretended imposition upon our judgment, by seeing ourselves in a 
mirror, or seeing a strait stick appear crooked in the water, a sa- 
vage or a child may be deceived by these appearances for a little 
while; but it is soon discovered even by a child, that he only sees 
himself in the glass, and that a strait stick does not become crook- 
ed by being held in the water. And this discovery is made, not by 
the philosopher's boasted reason, but by a little attention to the 
plain dictates of common sense. 



SECTION YUI. 

Four defective rules of judgment examined. 

My thoughts have been wandering through the creation in quest 
of some other rule of judgment, by which to distinguish truth 
from falsehood, beside those I have attempted to explain; but they 
had to return, like Noah's dove, w ithout being able to find any 
permanent resting place. Far be it from me to assert that there 
is no other kind of evidence, merely because I am unable to find it 
out; more capable minds may be able to discover w hat is beyond 
the grasp of my scanty thought; but until some other rule of judg- 
ment shall be made plain to my view, it will be readily granted 
that the foregoing rules of judgment ought to be my only grounds 
of credence. 

By intuitive judgment, we are enabled to perceive immediate- 
ly that some things are certainly true, that others are necessarily 
so, and that others have a self-evident probability; that is, are 
more likely to be true than false. We may build upon this foun- 
dation, and thus enlarge our knowledge by regular reasoning, and 
still more by the proper study of revelation; but if we depart from 
these rules or methods of distinguishing truth from falsehood, we 
are at once lost in a wide wilderness; nothing but hypothesis and 
eonjectures surround us, and all things are equally doubtful. 

It is true, several other rules of judging might be adopted; but 
opon a close inspection there appears to be no evidence in them, 
and they are very apt to contradict each other. It may not be im- 
proper to mention a few of them, and appeal to the reader's un- 
derstanding, whether they ought to have the preference, and to 
O 



±02 AN ESSAY ON THE 

govern our belief, instead of common sense, and reason, and reve- 
lation. 

1st. Let it be proposed as anile of judgment, "that the things 
we have been taught from our youth are certainly true, and those 
which we have not thus learned from our parents and teachers, are 
certainly false." 

This is indeed a very short rule, and one that is very gratifying 
to indolence: for if every thing be true that I have been taught, if I 
must govern my belief by this rule, and reject every thing that 
does not accord with it, I may at once lay by my pen, my reason 
and my bible: if I can only make shift to remember what my fa- 
ther and my instructors told me to believe, it is entirely sufficient, 
and this is all the improvement of knowledge I ought to look for. 
But if I may be permitted to look abroad into the world, I can- 
not help seeing that my rule, though shcrt, is able to produce a 
long string of contradictions. It teaches me that every thing in 
the world is true, or else that it is not at all necessary for a thing 
to be true, in order for it to command our belief. 

Pagans must believe in thirty thousand gods; Mahometans must 
believe in the whimsies of the alcoran; Papists must believe in 
purgatory and transubstantiation; Deists and Jews must believe 
that Jesus Christ was a crucified impostor; and Atheists must be- 
lieve there is no God of power, wisdom and goodness, but that 
there is a blind god, or goddess, called Fate or Chance, which 
madethisgreat world out of atoms. My new rule, I find, will support 
all those persons in their different creeds, provided only, that they 
have been taught to believe these contradictory opinions, by their 
parents and authorized teachers of religion and philosophy. 

Suppose then that I lay this rule aside, and, flying from one ex- 
treme to another, receive it as a maxim, " that every thing I 
have been taught from my youth is certainly false:" will this mend 
the matter? so far from it, that, if possible, it will make it 
worse: for if mankind are to receive this for a rule of judgment, 
it will follow not only that all we have received from others in 
our education, is certainly false, but it will be equally evident that 
if we make any new discoveries by reflection, they also will be- 
come falsehood when we teach them to our children, and they 
ought of consequence to reject them as such; otherwise they will 
violate the rule, which teaches, that every thing our fathers and 
instructors have inculcated upon us, should be rejected as a pre- 
judice of education. If we are to govern our belief by this, I hope 
our children are to have the same privilege, and thus, what is true in 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 103 

one age becomes false in another, and therefore who can blame 
philosophers for retiring into the shades of scepticism, to enjoy a 
state of profound ignorance, and smile at the whimsical and incon- 
sistent credulity of mankind? True, we could not blame them, if 
the world was favoured w ith no other method of discovering truth 
than such fantastical rules as these; but if sceptics have followed 
such rules till they were weary of the inconsistency of them, and 
then, to mend the matter, have abandoned all human knowledge, 
they are to be pitied, on account of the dismal case into which they 
have fallen, and to be blamed for leaving the sure path of reason 
and revelation, to pursue the bewildering dictates of passion and 
prejudice, or the airy flights of conjecture and imagination. 

But how are these inconsistencies to be avoided? There is only 
one way to avoid them, and that is a very plain way; it is, to re- 
ject both those rules of judging; — to consider the mere circum- 
stance of our having received a doctrine from our parents and 
teachers, as being no sign of either truth or falsehood: — and to 
bring such doctrines to the proper test of evidence, as well as all 
otheTS. 

2d. Another rule, nearly related to the foregoing, is, "to receive 
a doctrine for true, merely because it is believed by the majority, 
OT at least, has a great many votaries on its side." 

AYhen we have immediate conviction that a certain truth is 
self-evident, we may justly appeal to the universal judgment of 
mankind as a proof of its being an original dictate of our faculties; 
the real existence of a material world for example: but if we per- 
ceive no evidence of itfrom intuitive conviction, from reason or reve- 
lation, the number of votes in its favour ought to ge for nothing; 
because this rule would lead us into the same contradictions men- 
tioned above. 

It is now a pretty general belief in the world, and was once 
almost universal, that there are scores and hundreds of gods in 
this universe; and if the truth is to be decided by vote, I suspect 
our heathen neighbours will still have the majority. Papists 
make great use of this argument, and we cannot blame them much, 
when we consider that they have no better; but they would do 
well to consider, that if a musselman, or a worshipper of the 
great goddess Diana, should chance to get hold of their mighty 
argument, he would be able to turn it against themselves, and to 
shake the infallible church to her centre. 

It is pleasantto observe with what address Demetrius, the Ephe- 
sian silversmith, made use of this mode of reasonins:. « He call- 



104 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ed together the workmen of like occupation, and said, '-sirs, y» 
know that by this craft we have our wealth: moreover, ye see and, 
hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia^ 
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying 
that they be no gods which are made with hands; so that not only 
this our craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also, that the 
temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her 
magnificence should be destroyed, whom alt ^isia and the world 
worshippeth.^^ Acts, xix. 25. 

Thus, we see the old gentleman founded his eloquent harrangue 
upon three very popular topics: first, our craft is in danger: se- 
condly, the magnificence of the great goddess: and thirdly, she 
had numbers on her side; "whom all Asia and the world wor- 
shippeth." These arguments did not die with Demetrius: they have 
descended from one generation to another, and our fathers have 
found them to be very convenient engines in cases of necessity. 
But blessed be God, a few have been found in all ages, hold enough 
to look around, and ask, whether craft, magnificence, and votes are 
the method or rule of evidence, by which reasonable beings are to 
distinguish between truth and falsehood? 

The same opinion which has the majority in one age, falls into 
the minority in another: and thus the present ruje, like the for- 
mer, causes truth to change with the opinions of men, and the 
same thing that is true at this time, will be deemed a falsehood 
whenever it has the misfortune to be neglected and fall into the 
minority. And if we turn about and say, " that is certainly the 
truth which is believed by a few," the matter remains the same^ 
that which is believed by few at one time, is believed by niany at 
another, and thus we would make truth change as often as a new 
whim rises up to alter the fashion. For it is a lamentable fact, 
that books are read and doctrines believed by thousands, for no 
other reason but because they are fashionable; and as the fashion of 
a man'3 coat or a woman's head-dress is altered, perhaps seven 
times in a few years, is it wonderful that opinions should often rise 
and fall, with those who are disposed to regulate their belief by the 
^ame rule which produces so many revolutions in their apparel.^ 

3d. Perhaps we shall have better success, if we take for our 
rule of judgment, the infancy or old age of our doctrines: "That 
doctrine is certainly true" will one say, "which is old and pf long 
standing in the world." 

This principle has afforded another argument, which has also 
heen much wanted, an(J often resorted to, by the advocates of St 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 106 

Peter's chair. The holy Roman church, they say, has heen stand- 
ing for more than a thousand years; whereas tlie protestant« 
sprang up, as it were but yesterday, and invented their heresies in 
the days of Martin Luther. 

If a doctrine be false because it is new in the world, then the 
popish doctrine was^once false, because it once was new; this they 
cannot deny, unless they can make it appear that the secrets o€ 
purgatory were discovered and believed by mankind from eternity. 
And if popery be true because it is more than a thousand years 
old, then the protestant doctrines, when another thousand year* 
shall be fulfilled, will also be true for the same reason. Thus it 
appears that any falsehood may spring up, and will gradually 
change into truth by the lapse of ages. At first it is a most bitter 
falsehood; but a few centuries will expunge its bad qualities, and, 
like tobacco or wine, it grows better every year. 

I fear my freedom of speech will give offence, which I would 
wish to avoid, and I shall probably be reminded that it ill becomes 
me to allow myself in these intolerable levities, when speaking 
upon subjects of such importance; but if I were hindered from 
indulging a little pleasantry, when beset with such ridiculous ar- 
guments, I am afraid I should lose my temper and get angry at 
them, which would be a great deal worse. 

The old pharisees made great use of this kind of logic against 
the Redeemer of mankind; and who can blame them, if this be in 
deed the rule by which the Creator would have his reasonable crea- 
tures to judge.^ " We are Moses' diciples," say they; " we know- 
that God spake unto Moses, for his religion was of ancient date, 
but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is. Is not this the 
carpenter's son? Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? 
Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner.'^ 

If we should go to Ephesus, or to some other heathen country, 
and find another Demetrius making silver shrines for the goddess 
Diana, he would be able to stand his ground against the whole of 
us. And what shall we say of atheism itself, which appears to 
have been professed in our Saviour's time, and probably for a 
long time before he appeared upon earth? Have not atheists a 
right to plead the venerable antiquity of their doctrine as well as 
we? or does a good argument, used by a divine, become a sophism 
when it falls into the hands of infidels? 

But the truth is, infidels are not very fond of the argument in 
this form, because priests can use it as well as they; let it be turnr 
ejj topsyturvy, and they not ojily use it with great fondness, but 



10,6 AN ESSAY ON THE 

claim it as theirs exclusively. Their maxim is, that those dogmas 
and arguments, which are as old as the world, are not to deceive a 
philosopher: he knows the truth lies in the new ideas, and new dis- 
coveries of scientific geniuses, w ho have happily escaped from the 
shackles of priest-craft, by the irradiations of science. 

But if an argument or a truth be considered to diminish in its 
value by age, the conclusion still follows, that truth may gradual- 
ly degenerate into falsehood, and reason into sophistry. And if 
the late discoveries of our philosophers be true, they only claim, 
this character, it seems, by the novelty of their appearance, or the^ 
short duration they have had as ideas in the human brain: and 
they too, in their turn, must degenerate into falsehood and sophis- 
try by the lapse of ages. The transubstantiating principle is the 
same in both cases, as to the real change produced; only the Pa- 
pists appear to think time has a purifying quality, and transforms 
falsehood into truth; whereas the latter maxim supposes it to have 
a degenerating quality, so that all the value of an old truth, or an 
old argument, is entirely gone, and grown out of date. 

4th. Another rule of judgment is the following: "It is a sure 
sign of the truth of any doctrine, when it is confidently be- 
lieved and taught by persons of high rank and dignity, or in other 
words, when it is believed by a great general, statesman, philoso- 
pher, or doctor of divinity. 

This maxim deserves a more particular examination than the 
preceding, beeause, in a limited degree, it ought to have an influ- 
ence upon our judgment; but this degree must be carefully distin- 
guished from its false application. 

When men of understanding and habitual meditation give their 
judgment or opinion, in matters they have been long conversant 
with, some degree of credit is unquestionably due to their autho- 
rity, especially where a numberof them, of the same profession, 
agree in their judgment; and it is a matter of no small consequence 
to form' a correct view of the degree of credit that is due, that we 
may not follow them with a blind and implicit confidence, on the 
one hand, or foolishly deprive ourselves of their assistance on the 
other. 

Let me suppose an astronomer, who is known to be a person of 
experience and regular thinking, advances a certain matter as his 
decided opinion, of which I know nothing, and have never had 
any evidence for or against it: he offers no argument to prove it to 
me, but merely tells me he believes it, and thinks he has good evi- 
dence. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 107 

Ought I to receive it for certain, merely because the astronomer 
believes it? No. But still his authority affords a presumption, or a 
degree of probable evidence to my mind, that his opinion is true. 
If I find other astronomers are of the same judgment, the proba-. 
bility is increased, and reason enjoins on me to give that credit to 
it, that is due to presumptive evidence. Suppose the astronomer 
asks me whether I believe it or not, what ought to be my answer? 
I think it ought to be this: sir, you are better able to judge of this 
matter than I am, and your opinion alone affords a strong pre- 
sumption that it is true; but though I gladly pay this proper de- 
ference to your judgment, yet I must judge for myself, and cannot 
believe it firmly or absolutely, till you produce some evidence to 
my understanding besides that of your opinion or authority. 

Now it is evident, while he offers no argument, and I am unable 
to conceive any, I ought not to receive it for a certain truth; but 
while no evidence appears against it, I ought to consider myself 
as being possessed of probable evidence for it, and proportion 
my belief accordingly. 

But being farther instructed in such matters, I begin to examine 
the subject for myself, and in the progress of my investigation, I 
find, or think I find, very clear evidence against the astronomer's 
opinion. What now must I do? I think I ought to suspend my judg- 
ment, and suspect it, so far at least, as not to suffer it to make a 
final decision, till I have examined the ground a second time: if 
the evidence still appear clear against him, let me lay it before 
some of my most impartial and judicious friends, who are compe- 
tent to judge in the case, to see if it will carry the same conviction 
to their minds that it does to my own: if they perceive the force 
of it, as well as myself, I am warranted in believing firmly that the 
astronomer was in an error; still however, retaining a cheerful rea- 
diness to receive new light from any quarter. If my friends hesi- 
tate concerning the evidence I offer, and seem doubtful of i^s cer- 
tainty, I ought to go and review the ground a third time, with the 
utmost care and attention; and if I discover that I have been mista- 
ken, I ought immediately to yield to conviction; but if every suc- 
ceeding view of the subject should still increase the evidence to m^ 
mind,the Almighty Godwin approve me in using my own judgment, 
independently of all authority upon earth: and I cannot abandon it, 
«.nd regulate my belief merely by the opinions of other men, witliout 
being a sinner, and a positive enemy to truth. For it were to es- 
pouse the supposition, that a man ought to regulate his belief by the 
opinion of others resfardless of any oilier rvi<l<Miof', All ofhorm^ 



108 AN ESSAY ON THE 

have a right to act upon the same rule, and thus the examination 
of evidence may be neglected entirely, and men of high rank and 
character may give tone to the opinions of the world, just as they 
give tone to the fashions of dress and politeness, which are chang- 
ing every year. 

Thus it appears, that it is not only our right, but our sacred du- 
ty to think and judge each one for himself, by those methods and 
rules of judgment, which God has appointed to direct his intelli- 
gent creatures to truth and happiness. And if I pay that deference 
to the judgment of others, which is properly due, and no more, it 
will lead me to examine the matter more closely than otherwise; 
whereas some divines and philosophers, I fear, have thought a de- 
ference should be paid them, of a directly opposite tendency: in- 
stead of being influenced by their authority to examine the matter 
with more attention and deliberation, before we form a final judg- 
ment, they would have us give less attention on this account, and 
not presume to press the enquiry any further, after we know their 
mind and pleasure; but to take for granted at once that the thing is 
true, solely because they believe it; and let their dignity as philo- 
sophers and doctors of divinity supply the place of every other 
argument. 

The popish doctors, it appears, make this profession openly, and 
in the face of heaven: they would have us understand that their 
infallible authority is the only rule by which we should regulate 
all our opinions: and it is truly surprising that they have been 
able to carry their project to such a height, and that the world 
has been so befooled by their ingenious craft. But it shows 
the great weakness of human nature, and evinces our ridi- 
culous propensities to gaze after any leader, that has cunning 
enough to assume some kind of dignity and grandeur above his 
fellows. It is a plain proof of our natural inclination to idola- 
try; aiul it went so far among some of the heathens, that the rab- 
ble not only yielded a blind submission to their sages and heroes, 
while they lived, but adored them as deities after they were dead. 

Deists, it is true, do not make such an open claim to these sin- 
gular prerogatives, as those of the sacred and holy order; but 
they seem very willing to avail themselves of the common preju- 
dice, whenever it can be done in a way that will save appearances, 
after all the complaints they have uttered against priestly authori- 
ty. They pretend that all men of genius and liberal thinking are 
on tlieir side; and they make almost as great a stir about the irra- 
diations of science and philosophy, as the priests did about their 



PLAN OF SALVATION, 1,09 

sanctified cliviuity. Paine has informed the woild that the pro- 
gressive improvement of the sciences will regularly discredit the 
christian faith; and has affirmed or insinuated, very gravely, that 
if men in general could be brought to understand philosophy, they 
Mould see clearly that the christian religion is contrary to the 
true word of God, which "is the creation we behold." And as the 
people in general could never see this mighty evidence, for want 
of a proper knowledge of science, he daublless hoped that tJiey 
would take it for granted upon the authority of a philosopher. 

x\re deists willing, let me ask, that every man should think 
for himself, and pay no more blind reverence to philosophers than 
to divines? Are they willing for us to examine and expose the hy- 
potheses of a Gibbon, or a Hume, w ith the same freedom and inde- 
pendence, w hich they would allow us to use when exposing those 
of a popish Bellarmine? Arc they willing we should examine ideas; 
in the brain, as the only subject of human knowledge, and use the 
strong weapons of common sense against this venerable hyj>othe^ 
sis, which has more antiquity to plead in its favour than even 
popery itself? If not, they show their near relationship to his ho- 
liness in St. Peter's chair. And need no longer complain of the 
craft of priests, in imposing their digniiied authority upon the su- 
perstitious vulgar; for it seems they are very ready to use the 
same craft, and avail themselves of the same superstitious weak- 
ness of Uie people, whenever it may suit their convenience. 

I have several times thought, that I shall have the mortitication 
to pass among philosophers as a dogmatical and vulgar enthusiast; 
and among divines, as a pompous and self-sufficient heretic; but I 
hope a few friends will stand by me, which will afford some con- 
solation under such a calamity. For you must know I am not so 
indifferent to the opinions of mankind, as to be willing to stand 
alone in such a world as this. And it atfords me unspeakable plea- 
sure to find I can screen myself under the authority of a Reid, a 
Beatty, and a Campbell, among philosophers: and under the au- 
thority of a Baxter, a Wesley, a Fletcher, and others, among di- 
vines: as I hope to make appear in the sequel. 

Not that 1 intend to follow any one of these, with a blind sub- 
mission, and say " Thou art my father and my master!" our hea- 
venly Father and Master has taught us better things, and we 
ought to obey God ratlier than man. 

But we often see partialities and contradictions in men, that 
would be unaccountable, if we were less acquainted with human 
Itat4ire, You will hear one person express his iudignatioa agaiBJt 
P 



±10 AN ESSAY ON THE 

the superstitious papists, for their blind submission to popes and 
cardinals; but at the same time, if you touch the hypothesis of 
Des Cartes, Berkley, or David Hume, Esq. immediately he is of- 
fended that you should question the opinions of such sublime ge- 
niuses: another smiles at the blind disciples of Mr. Hume, but thinks 
you a very bold heretic if you presume to question any thing ad- 
vanced by Martin Luther or John Calvin, A third, is surprised at 
the blind attachment and will-worship ofthepoorCalvinists,butat 
the same time considers you almost a blasphemer against revelation, 
if you dispute the authority of George Fox, or Robert Barclay. A 
fourth pities the tame credulity of the poor infatuated quakers, but 
at the same time rises with no inconsiderable degree of zeal and in- 
dignation, if you presume to dissent from any opinion believed and 
taught by John Wesley and John Fletcher, These are the strange 
inconsistencies, of mankind. 

But what is still more provoking, a gentleman sometimes ap- 
pears to be indulged in the privilege of becoming dictator general, 
and of governing the belief of hundreds by his ijjise dixit, merely 
because he owns a very large farm, or lives in a very large house^ 
or has large sums of money in bank.- He was favoured, it seems, 
with a nohle hirth, and has very noble blood, and therefore who can 
doubt his indefeisible right to controul the opinions of common 
farmers and mechanics, and to direct them what they are to be- 
lieve and what they are to disbelieve.^ 

His honest neighbours, it appears, many of whom in all likeli- 
hood, possess more genuine wisdom and moral worth, than has 
been verified in his noble line from the days of his great grand-fa- 
ther, must prostrate themselves before his honour;-They must learn 
to consider themselves as a species of animals far inferior to that 
of his wealthy order, and must settle it down in their hearts, that 
the commonalty, or the peasantry are an order of beings that are 
to demean themselves with cringing submission, look up with 
reverence to their lordly superiors,and tamely yield up their under- 
standings to their dictatorial sway. And this is to be done, not be- 
cause their superiors have any more common sense or reason than 
themselves; (for they sometimes have not half so much) but mere- 
ly because they have more gold and silver, or because they are 
pleased to inform the world that they have blood of a superior 
quality. 

It is not easy for any one to imagine how it would please my 
soul this day, if J could persuade all my vulgar brethren, as we are 
denominated, over the whole face of the earth, to join me heart 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 141 

and hand, and let us try if we cannot throw of the shackles which 
this piece of craft has cast upon our understandings. Why should 
we abandon the common dignity of our nature. andsubmit our judg- 
ments to be led by a master, just like a dog or an ox? If we have 
to plough their fields, and reap down their harvests, and thus wear 
outourfiof/iVsas I hi'ir servants; for God's sake, for truth's sake, and 
for the honour of human nature let the immortal soul be free! let 
ns show them that we are men, and that we will think and judge 
for ourselves. They have not power to halter our understandings 
without our own consent; and when they cry out, "This people 
which knoweth not the law are cursed— thou wast altogether 
born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Did not we straitly command 
you that ye should not teach (or believe) in this name.'^" Let us smile 
and imitate the nohle independenceof the apostle Peter, in his re- 
ply to the old scribes and doctors of divinity: — "If we this day be 
examined of the good deed done lo the impotent man, be it known 
unto you all, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom 
ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth 
this miin stand here before you whole. This is the stone that was 
set at nought of you builders, which has become the head of the 
corner." Acts, iv. 9. And if they cast us into prison, and make our 
feet fast in the stocks, let us prove, like Paul and Silas, that still 
the soul is free. Let us never sacrifice truth to any man's authori- 
ty, and the God of truth will defend us; he will support us under 
every affliction, or shake the foundation of the prison by his power, 
and show that his kingdom ruleth over all. 

I must close this section by expressing my sincere respect for 
those in the higher ranks of life. There have been, and now are^ 
many divines and philosophers, — many among the rich and influ- 
ential part of society, who are persons of great respectability, and 
1 hope 1 shall never be insensible to their worth. They are men of 
true wisdom, veracity and benevolence; and are justly to be con- 
sidered among the most amiable benefactors of mankind. But how 
agrees this with the foregoing paragraphs.'^ It agrees very well 
w ith them. The persons I speak of are not strutting with pompo- 
sity about the world, and labouring to be adored as deities, on ac- 
count of their being divines, philosophers, statesmen or heroes; 
much less on account of their money or their blood: they scorn to 
impose upon the souls of men and cause their understandings to be- 
come the dupes of craft and absurdity: they have no desire to put 
out the eyes of mankind, by taking advantage of their prejudices* 
in order to make them their tools and vassals; nor yet to cast a 



jl^ AN ESSAY ON Tl^ 

mist before them, in order to secure their ignorant gaze, and cause 
them to adore a hero as a little god, for being a mortal enemy to 
human happiness. But they delight to use their time and talents, 
their office, influence and riches, to diffuse useful knowledge, truths 
virtue, piety and solid happiness among their fellow-creatures^ 
The practice of despising their brethren of the human family, be* 
cause they happen to be poor, ignorant or unfortunate, is detestable- 
|n their estimation. They glory in that candour and benevolence 
{n that love of truth and righteousness, which tend to dispel the 
dark mists of delusion, and to assuage the miseries of the human 
race. They consider themselves as members of the great family 
of mankind, who are to live and act, not for themselves alone, but 
for the general welfare. They are willing that moral goodness 
should be the standard of esteem ; aud while they delight to enjoy 
the confidence and love of their fellow-creatures, they are equally 
"willing that every other man should be esteemed in proportion to 
his moral worth, w hether he be rich or poor, learned or unlearned. 
In a word, they chuse to be governed by consistency and reason, 
ajid are pleased to see their fellow -creatures render unto Ood the 
veneration due to his eternal goodness, as well as to sec that they 
themselves are honoured, for exercising a degree of the same be- 
neficence. They hate the selfish atheism, which would lead them to 
trample upon the rights of others to build up their own fame, and 
to use various arts, and sometimes very barbarous ones, to prevail 
with men to adore them as little deities, for thousands of years af- 
ter they are dead, to the neglect of God their Creator, These arc 
the dispositions and principles of the men, of whom I am speaking; 
and for these reasons 1 hope to love and esteem them highly till I 
gp dpwu to the grave. 



SECTION IX. 

The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of truth. 

We have already noticed the false principle in divinity, that 
'* ignorance is the mother of devotion." If this principle be admit- 
ted, it will follow from it, either that " devotion is not founded in 
truth," or that the most successful way of understanding or know* 



I'LAN OF SALVATION. 11$ 

ing the truth, is " to continue in a state of ignorance." The latter 
conclusion appears to be adopted by some christians, though thej 
are not fairly willing to own it; why else are we indirectly cau- 
tioned against the improvement of knowledge? and why is a dili- 
gent pursuit of truth sometimes represented as being dangerous? 

All truth, rightly understood, believed and practised, tends in 
the happiness of intelligent beings. "Ye shall know the truth, and 
the truth shall make you free. For this end was I born, and 
for this purpose came 1 into the w orld, that I might bear witness 
unto the truth," says our benevolent Redeemer. 

That one truth may be of far more importance to us then ano« 
ther, is evident: but we cannot suppose any truth is naturally 
unfriendly to happiness, without supposing at the^ same time 
that one tr?ith has a nature opposite to another, and in some 
cases falsehood is to have the preference. We might as w ell sup- 
pose that justice, in some cases, is injurious, and that injustice is 
then to be considered of superior value. 

If truth uniformly tends to the happiness of mankind, and er- 
ror to their unhappiness, what danger can there be in a diligent 
pursuit, and extensive knowledge of the truth? Are men in dau- 
ger of becoming top happy? or are w^e afraid that too many delu- 
sions will be detected? Reasons of a very diiferent kind are aileg- 
€id; some of which are the following: 

First; It is urged that men in general, are incapable of entering 
into the intricacies of metaphysical reasoning; and it is essential 
to their happiness and safety, not to meddle with such bewilder- 
ing speculations, but keep to the simplicity of the gospel of 
Christ. I answer, 

1. It is true, no man will ever gain any thing, but lose much, 
by regularly labouring to know what he is inccqmhle of knowing; 
but does it hence follow that some men are ii^capable of knowing 
any more than they know already? or tlvait it is a hurtful or use- 
less thing for them to pursue the knowledge they can acquire, be- 
cause it is so, for them to try to know^ what they cannot? There is 
not a man in the world, but is incapable of knowing many thing.< 
must we all, therefore, lay by the pursuit of truth, and refuse t.o 
improve the talents we have, because it is impossible for us to ini* 
prove those which we have not? For a man to exercise metaphy- 
sical reasonings upon what he cannot know, is not to pursue truth, 
but to build castles in the air upon an hypothesis. If these be 
the "bewildering speculations" alluded to in the objection, 1 woulij 
t0 God that all mt^nkind vyould avoid thejn; for they are so far 



il4 AN ESSAY ON THE 

from being a regular road to truth, that they have been the prfti- 
cipal instruments made use of to filJ the world with delusion. 

2. For a man to neglect that part of truth which is within his 
reach, and content himself in a state of ignorance, under pretence 
that he may possibly get bewildered and miss his way, is an ab- 
surdity similar to that of a servant, who, after neglecting his mas- 
ter's business, excuses himself by saying, "sir, I thought if I went 
about the work you enjoined on me, 1 might possibly make some 
mistakes, and not do it exactly right: I therefore concluded my 
wisest and safest m ay was to sit still and do nothing." Some sin- 
ners have reasoned in this way, and for fear they might miss their 
way, or not persevere in the way of righteousness, they coiTcluded 
never to begin! A person who confirms himself in his present ig- 
norance by sueJi pitiful sophistry, need not congratulate himself 
upon his having avoided "bewildering speculations." 

3. As to our keeping to the simplicity of the gospel, if we fol- 
low the plain dictates of reason, they will ever keep us there. 
According to the simplicity of the gospel we are to give all dili- 
gence to improve our talents, to know and obey the truth, and to 
be always ready to give every ane an answer that asketh us a rea- 
son of the hope that is in us: therefore, he who pleads for the 
neglect of our understanding, immediately departs from the very 
rule he had recommended. And such persons only pretend to be 
ignorant, or else they have yet to learn, that true reason as 
well as the gospel, is very simple in its nature^ and if they say 
that all the intricate and dark philosophy of the schools, is built 
upon reason, it is necessary again to remind them, that the pope 
will, with equal confidence, declare that the dark superstitions of 
the Romish religion are built upon the bible. 

Secondly; It may be alleged that many men have done harm 
with their knowledge, and had they been more ignorant, they 
would have been less wicked: add to this, that as the desire of 
knowledge proved fatal to our first parents, so it often does to 
their fallen children: witness the thousands who have been led 
to infidelity, if not to atheism itself, by their curious speculations 
and insatiable thirst for new discoveries. Answer, 

1. That some men have done harm with their knowledge, is 
readily granted-, but have they not also used all the faculties of 
their souls, and the members of their bodies, as instruments of 
unrighteousness? But I hope every one know s that the man is 
culpable for all this, and not his knowledge, any more than the 
members of his body, or powers of his mind. Shall we conclude, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. U^ 

that because men have used their hands to do a great deal of mis- 
chief, it would he better for them to have no hands? or because 
they have more power to do harm with two hands than with one, 
does it therefore, follow, that the Creator would have acted more 
wisely, if he had given them one only? What immense evil has 
been done in the world by means of iron and other pietals? They 
have been formed into instruments of death, to pour out human 
blood like water. But shall we hence infer that God acted un- 
wisely in storing the earth with those metals for the use of man? 
or that the proper use of them should be discouraged, because 
wicked men will apply them to bad purposes? And because 
men have far more power to spread error abroad among their fel- 
low-creatures, than they had when every copy of their works 
was written with a pen, is it thervifore, to be lamented that the 
art of printing was ever discovered? 

2. It is not merely the knowledge of truth, but the love of it al- 
so, that is to produce genuine happiness either in ourselves or 
others. It is truth rightly understood, believed and used to the 
regulation of our practice, that tends to the general welfare of the 
world; and not barely knowing it when that knowledge is only 
used to invent schemes of wickedness; otherwise the devil him- 
self would be a very happy creature; for I presume he has more 
knowledge than any of us. 

AVheu a man is striving to increase his knowledge, in order to 
increase his power to do harm, he ought indeed to be discourag- 
ed, because truth is not his object; he only aims to use it so far as 
it can be abused to promote his seliish purposes, and when false- 
hood will serve his turn better, he gladly embraces it, and lias no 
more regard for truth than he has for falsehood. He pursues 
knowledge, as many deists read the bible, not to use it for his own 
real advantage, and that of others; but to try if he cannot destroy 
it, and thus deprive all other men of the beneiit of that which he 
himself abhors. Have not sceptics proved this in the face of 
heaven? have they not laboured under the mask of love to science 
and human improvement, to conviuce mankind that all things are 
equally doubtful, and that we ought not to believe any one thing 
rather than another? Now if mankind were brought into this 
state, it is evident all knowledge of truth, and the benefit re- 
sulting therefrom, would be totally destroyed, unless they are plea- 
sed to say that the know ledge of truth consists in believing no- 
thing. Therefore, it is as impossible for such a sceptic to be a 
lover of truth, as it is for a man to be d. friend to human happines^i 
^ho does hii uttermost to banish it from the face of the earth. 



t.16 AN ESSAY ON THE 

And shall we therefore adv ise this person not to pursue the 
knowledge of truth? Advise him rather, not to pursue the destruc- 
tion of it. Shall we say he had better be more ignorant? Hoav can 
he be more ignorant, if he is now unable to distinguish truth from 
fitisehood in any one thing in the universe? To persuade men there 
is danger in pursuing tlje knowledge of truth too diligently, because 
S'jme persons have run into great danger, by pursuing the destruction 
of it, under;7)'efc'72ceof improviiigknowledge, is just as ridiculous as 
to declare there is great danger in being too attentive to the Chris- 
tian religion, because our venerable divines of the dark ages had 
almost banished the knowledge of it from the earth, under pre- 
tence of supporting its authority. 

The danger consists — not in our diligence, — not in the abun- 
dance of our knowledge, — not in striving to understand truth too 
pcriectly and extensively; but in those selfish principles and per- 
nicious prejudices which influence us to conceal, stifle, and 
suppress ail evidence that seems to have a bearing against our 
favwirite idols, and to pursue doctrines and defend them, not be- 
cause they are true, but because they are necessary to the support 
of our party, our pleasure, or our pride. Candour is so essential 
to the discovery of truth, that a man witliout candour will not on- 
ly miss it, but actually is not pursuing it, however diligent he 
may be in the pursuit of his studies. .His opinions are already 
formed, by the rule of passion and prejudice, and he is labouring 
to find something to defend them. When he finds any thing that 
accords with his opinion, he receives it gladly and sets it oft' to 
the best advantage; but if evidence appear against him, however 
clear, he labours to conceal it, both from himself and others, and 
is unwilling it should be brouglit to light, for fear a full view of 
it would show where the truth was, so plainly, that it would be al- 
most irresistible. Such a person is not pursuing doctrines because 
they are true^ but because they are subservient to his purposes; 
and when error will serve his turn to the best advantage, he will 
love it so much better than truth, that the clearest evidence will be 
resisted and hated for its sake. 

3. As to our First Parents, I grant the desire of knowledge was 
one cause of their apostacy; but was not the desire of happiness 
another cause? And is it then a just inference to conclude that a 
diligent pursuit of hap]>iness is dangerous, and ought to be dis- 
couraged? This conclusion must stand or fall with the one I am 
opposing: and I presume it is impossible to banish knowledge from 
the world without desUoyiug happiness in the same proportion. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. Il7 

In what did the danger or tlie fault of our first parents consist? 
It consisted in vainly attempting to increase their knowledge and 
their happiness, by recurring to imaginary means of obtaining 
them, which God had never appointed. The devil formed an fiy* 
pothesis for our Mother Eve, which she took for granted, and made 
the foundation of a very grand and interesting system, as she sup- 
posed. The hypothesis was, " that she would sustain no manner of 
injury by partaking of the fruit, which her Maker had forbidden^ 
but that on the contrary, she would gain much wisdom by it, and 
become like God himself." 

Now what evidence had our mother for this theoretical maxim? 
She had no more evidence for it, than she had that her great and 
benevolent Creator was a deceiver and a liar. But she rashly ad- 
mitted it without evidence, and probably her imagination was car- 
ried away with many fantastical conclusions, concerning her fu- 
ture dignity, happiness, wisdom and divine prerogatives, when she 
should become a goddess, knowing good and evil. Was she expos- 
ed to danger by the diligent pursuit of truth? Just the contrary: 
she admitted the devil's theory, not from a diligent examination, 
but from the want of it: had she carefully reflected upon the abun- 
dant evidence she had of the veracity of Almighty God; — that she 
had no proof against it but the bare word of this tempter; — that iu 
receiving his declaration, she must necessarily renounce all the 
evidence she ever had of the tender care, wisdom, kindness and 
truth of her heavenly Father: — had she thus reflected, i say, and 
acted according to the convictions of her understanding, the snare 
would have been effectually broken. But, neglecting to pursue truth 
with diligence^ and being content with her present ignorance of the 
danger that threatened her, she admitted the deviFs hypothesis 
with very little hesitation, and thus brought wretchedness and 
death upon herself and family. And I am a little inclined to think 
that hypotheses have been among the most successful engines of 
Satan from that day to the present. 

4. It is alleged in the objection, "that thousands have been led 
to deism, if not to atheism, by their curious speculations and in- 
satiable thirst for new discoveries." 

I feel no hesitation in admitting this to be very probable, if not 
certainly true: and 1 am so far from fearing it will militate against 
the conclusion here defended, that I hope to make it appear that it 
destroys the opposite conclusion. 

The curious speculations, and thirst of new discoveries, wliieh 
led men to unbelief and scepticism, did notarise from the love of 



lis AN ESSAV^ ON THE 

truth, nor consequently from a sincere desire to find it; otherwise 
they would have regulated tlieir enquiries by evidence and by no- 
thing else; unless some one will be pleased to assert, that truth is 
discovered and supported by something else besides evidence. 

I readily grant that it is possible for me to think very diligently, 
and at the same time, through a vain curiosity, or foolish eager- 
ness, 1 may expose myself to great danger, by running beyond the 
light of evidence, eitlier to make a discovery in less time, and by a 
shorter process, than tliat of regular and patient induction, or to ex- 
plore and pretend to account for things, of which 1 know nothing 
at all, and cannot knoAv, because they are beyond the reach of my 
understanding. So far as I have evidence, so far 1 have knowledge 
in exact proportion to it; and if I be content to follow the evidence, 
and aim at no knowledge but that to which it conducts me, by 
chaste and clear comparisons and consequences, (which, by the 
way, is all the knowledge 1 can have) there is no manner of dan- 
ger in the pursuit; but if I leave the evidence, in order to make 
greater discoveries than those to which it will lead me, or lo find 
out a greater number of them, or to discover them sooner^ or with 
less labour, then indeed I am in great danger, because I am no lon- 
ger in the pursuit of truth, otherwise I would not desert the evi- 
dence of it, by which alone it can ever be ascertained. 

The love of truth will never produce in me a desire to make 
any other discoveries than such as are true, and I shall regard 
the discovery no farther than I perceive evidence that it is truej 
otherwise it is not for the sake of truth I am labouring, but for the 
sake of something else. 

Perhaps I am very desirous to obtain jf^iEwie; to immortalize my- 
self, or at least my name; — to secure literary glory to my memo- 
ry; — to h&ve Si monument hiiih oi' IV ood or stone; — to live in the 
people's memories; — to enjoy immortality from their breath; — 
and, to wear a crown of laurels, for many ages after 1 am dead. 

Now to accomplish this end, several things are essentially ne- 
cessary. 

First: Something extraordinary must be done. I must make 
new and great and i7igenious discoveries: there must also be a suf- 
ficient number of them to form what may be called my theory, — 
my system, that I may pass for a great genius and 'a, philosopher. 

Secondly: I must be very careful to frame my discoveries in a 
w ay that shall strike in w ith the passions and prejudices of the 
people; — at least with those who w ill probably have the greatest 
hand in conferring literary glory upon me. Hence, if I find evi- 



PLAN OP SALVATION. tl9 

(|ence leading me to eoRclnsioiis opposite to the most darling sys^ 
terns and theories in tJie world, especially those of divines and phi- 
losophers, I must immediately reject that evidence, and give over 
the doctrines to which it leads, otherwise I shall become vnpopU' 
lar, and the whole body of divines and philosophers will do their 
utmost to deprive me of the crown of laurels. 

Thirdly: My discoveries must be suhlime^ like those of a true 
genius: they must be far above common or vulgar opinions, and 
must be supported in a manner far more sublime, ihan to be 
subject to the test of old worn-out arguments, or to the vulgar 
dictates of common sense; they are to be so refined and phi- 
losophical, that the commonalty and peasantry, shall be totally in- 
capable of understanding any thing concerning them. 

Fourthly: They must have the appearance, at least, of great 
plausibility, and ingenious reasoning; otherwise they will be apt 
to expose me instead of securing my immortality. Suppose then 
I perceive that one of my discoveries would be very unpopular, 
and another is incapable of being supported by solid arguments: 
what must T do? The unpopular discovery must be abandoned 
without farther ceremony; and as to the other, though it cannot 
be supported by any solid proof, yet there is one expedient by 
w hich 1 can save appearances, and secure my future fame. 

Let an hypothesis be invented, and cautiously guarded against 
too close an inspection, till the system be built upon it, that the 
eyes of men may be so dazzled with the regular deductions and 
philosophical appearance of the superstructure, that their atten- 
tion may be diverted from the defective and theoretical founda- 
tion. Care must be taken too, that the hypothesis have some ap- 
pearance of plausibility: it must seem to account for some pheno- 
mena of nature. It must also be above vulgar apprehension; so 
that if any one attempt to attack it with the weapons of common 
sense, the whole may be resolved into his unphilosophical igno- 
rance. Perhaps the brains would be a good seat for the hypothe- 
sis, where the vulgar are not very conversant: no man has ever 
seen his brains, and it is not to be presumed that any person is so 
well calculated to describe the images of them as a philosopher^ 
1 can decorate the ground-work w ith many learned names which 
may serve the better to conceal it from public notice: I can treat 
in systematical order, ot the organs of sensation — of the animal spi- 
rits, — of the optic and olfactory nerves, — of the jnneal gland,— •> 
of the soul^s presence chamber, — of the ideas, or images of sound— ^ 
and how they travel through the air, enter my ear and progress 



i^o AN ESSAY ON THE 

through the organs till they reach the brain, where they take their 
seat, or are laid by in their proper apartments, and reserved for 
future use. 

If a man should have the assurance to rise up, and declare he 
never ^^w his braiis, or an idea in all the world, and that he ac- 
tually sees his wife and children without ever using ideal 
spectacles in his brains, — it is surely an easy thing for me to si- 
lence him, " by telling him he is a poor, unphilosophical, vulgar 
and dogmatical enthusiast, that knows nothing about the laws of 
nature." 

Now I must appeal to my friendly reader, and ask two plain ques- 
tions. 1, Is it not possible that 1 should pursue such a method as is 
here described? if so,letit be remembered, that whateveris possible 
may be supposed for the sake of argument. 2. If 1 should pursue 
such a method, would it not be very clear that truth would not be 
my object.^ If so, let it be remembered, that the danger of such a 
method attbrds no argument to prove there is any danger in the 
practice of diligently pursuing the knowledge of truth: consequent- 
ly, for aught that has yet appeared to the contrary, it is impossible 
for knowledge to be improved too much, or for truth to be pursu- 
ed with too much attention, scrutiny and perseverance, while the 
love of truth, or candour, regulates our course, without which the 
true enlargement of human knowledge is not the object we are 
Oiter^ 



SECTION X, 

The necessity and safety of a diligent communication of truth. 

If it be necessary, safe and right, for a man to pursue truth with 
diligence, because it naturally tends to promote human felicity, then 
it is equally necessary, safe and right, for him to communicate th© 
knowledge of it to his fellow-creatures. 

Are there any objections to this conclusion? There are several^ 
the chief of which we will briefly examine. 

First: It may be said, we ought to accommodate ourselves to 
the people's ignorance; and if we attempt to lead them into pro- 
found subjects, which they are not able to bear, we shall onjy 



PLAN ©F SALVATION. ia^ 

cause them to stumble into greater errors, and they will be materi- 
ally injured, instead of being benefitted by our ofticiousness. An- 
swer: 

That caution should be used in the manner of our communica- 
tions, is freely acknowledged. A father, if he would benefit his 
children, must not attempt to communicate the highest branches of 
knowledge to them, until the knowledge of plainer truths shall 
have given them a capacity to receive those of a higher order. 
Hence our Saviour says, "I have many things to say unto you, but 
ye are not able to bear them now. What 1 do thou knowestnot 
now, but thou shalt know hereafter." And hence God nursed up the 
ancient Israelites, as children in a state of minority: " The law 
%vas their school-master," and they " were kept under tutors, and 
governors until the times appointed of the Father;" and many great 
truths of the gospel were hid for ages, because the world was not 
then capable of receiving them. 

God, as the great fatherof mankind, knows perfectly their capaci- 
ty and state of mind, and knows what portion of truth is most suita_ 
ble to their present condition: he accordingly gave a revelation, by 
Moses, adapted to the infant state of the world, and made know^ 
liis truth more fully, by the Lord Jesus Christ, after his former dis- 
pensations had opened the way for it, by maturing the minds of hie 
feeble children. 

In like manner, a minister, or any other man who is about to ad- 
dress a particular assembly, whom he knows to be very ignorant 
and uninformed, should accommodate himself to their capacity. 
Thus Paul says to the Corinthians, " I have fed you with milk, 
and not with raeatj for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, nei- 
ther yet now are ye able." 1 Cor. iii. 2. And he reproves the He- 
brews, because he had to use the same method with them; who, had 
they improved upon the means of knowledge in their power^ 
might have been able to teach others: '' For when for the time 
ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again 
which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become 
such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Heb. v. 12. 

Here he blames them for neglecting to improve their knowledge., 
and says expressly, that they " ought to teach others also:" he 
therefore enjoins the two duties for which I plead: 1. " That we 
ought to improve our knowledge as much as possible;" and 2, 
« That what we gain we should communicate to others, that th^y 
may enjoy the benefit as well as ourselves." 



±22 AN ESSAY ON THE 

When a man addresses himself to the world, he ought not sure- 
ly to keep back any part of the truth, that he is able to understand; 
and to prove by evidence which to him appears satisfactory, for 
fear those to whom he addresses himself should not be capable of 
receiving it: for what could this arise from but the pride and piti- 
ful self-sufficiency, that would lead him to think no person in the 
worid could understand the truth so well as himself? Must he 
consider mankind as his children, and thus put himself in the place 
of God? And suppose some should be unable to enter into the sub» 
ject, must it be kept back on this account? If so, it would appear, 
that a considerable part of the scriptures should have been kept 
baek; for " our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom gi- 
ven unto him, hath written some things hard to be understood, 
which the ignorant and unlearned wrest, as they do also the other 
scriptures, even to their own destruction." 

Had those ignorant people improved their understanding, by 
proper attention to truths within their reach, they might have be- 
come sufficiently learned, to have understood the deep things 
which the apostle wrote, or at least to have avoided stumbling at 
them; but I suspect they were too indolent to come to an under- 
standing of those things, by the slow method of regular improve^ 
ment in knowledge: they probably formed some hypothesis to help 
them to the understanding of Paul's writings in a shorter way, 
and without much labour; and hence they wrested them to their own 
destruction* 

Secondly: It may be alleged, that we ought to accommodate our- 
selves to the prejudices of mankind, and not advance doctrines, 
however true, against which there are strong and general prepos- 
sessions, lest we drive people still farther from the truth. Paul 
•* became all things to all men, that he might gain the more,^^ To 
this I answer: 

1. Paul accommodated himself to the different customs and 
manners of the people, that were in themselves indifferent, and 
walked cautiously and prudently among them, that he might not 
exasperate them, or augment those passions and prejudices which 
his aim was to destroy; but he kept back no part of the counsel of 
God, either in his preaching or his writings, under pretence of 
submitting to their prejudices. 

2. When our brethren, through weakness of understanding, are 
▼ery scrupulous concerning certain indifferent matters, as eating 
different kinds of meat, and the like, we ought to be cautious not 
to wound their weak consciences; but to accommodate ourselves to 



PLAN OF SALVATION. X2d^ 

iheir feeble minds, till they be better informed, or more capable of 
receiving instruction. 

3. We ought never to attack people's prejudices with the wea- 
pons of anger, bitterness, or animosity; this would be the direct 
way to increase them, because it would be to tight delusion on its 
•vvu ground; but farther accommodations than these are inadmis- 
sible; because ii the calm dispassionate voice of reason and reve- 
lation is to be suppressed or laid aside, on the ground stated in the 
objection, we at once espouse the principle, that when truth and 
prejtidice come into contact or competition, the former ought to 
yield to the latter. 

4. if ay of our fellow-creatures are in an error, and are wed- 
ded to it by prepossession, is it right for us to try to convince them 
of their mistake, or is it really better for them to believe a false- 
hood than the truth? Or, is it impossible for their prejudices to be 
overcome? If so, we suppose them to be held in delusion by neces- 
sity. And if it be possible for their mistake to be rectified, how 
is this to be doner by suppressing the truth and leaving them to 
hold fast their error with unsuspecting confidence.^ or, by calmly ex- 
hibiting the truth before them.^ Shall we keep back the evidence^ 
because many will obstinately refuse to give it a fair hearing? And 
why not keep back the gospel from the world then, because many 
will obstinately shut their eyes against the light, and reject the 
counsel of God against themselves? 

It will perhaps be said, if they should be shaken out of one error, 
they will only run over into another, perhaps a worse one; for 
*< Nothing is more common than for men to run into one extreme un- 
der the plausible pretence of avoiding another!" To prevent such 
revolutions we had better leave the world and the church as it is 
at present. 

And would not this argument apply with equal force, in any age 
since the world beganr According to this logic, the gospel ought 
to have been kept back, for men were prone to extremes in that age 
as well as this; and thousands did in fact, after renouncing Pagan- 
ism and embracingthe Christian profession, run into greater scenes 
of darkness than ever, as has been shov>n inanote fromDr. Camp- 
bell. Was the gospel to blame for this? or shall wise men be de- 
prived of the evidence of truth, because the foolish are disposed to 
east it from them with contempt? 

The objection supposes truth is not the thing that is to guard 
men from error: but that they are to be guarded against one delu- 
sion, by being kept in another. This is like saying to a man who 



i^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

has fallen into a ditch on one side of a narrow path, which he was 
travelling in the dark, " sir, 1 will not help yon ont or bring a can* 
die to assist you in finding your way, for fear you will be so trans- 
ported upon your deliverance from that ditch, that, in your eager- 
ness to avoid it in future, you will stagger into another on the 
other side of the road." Would he take that man to be his friend, 
or believe rather that he intended to insult him with such an abo- 
minable argument? As Paul rejected with indignation the imputa- 
tion of having said, " let us do evil that good may come;" so let 
us renounce the pitiful prejudice, that we ought to suppress evi- 
dence, and keep men in error, that truth may prevail. We might 
as well say, let us walk in darkness that light may come, or let us 
delight in ignorance that knowledge may come. 

0. The principle here opposed, is another favourite engine of the 
infallible church, and one which was a chief cause of its rising. 
Many of the heathens were converted to Christianity, who had long 
been in habits of using many ceremonies, and worshipping many 
gods: The ministers of the gospel began to find it necessary, as 
they thought, to accommodate themselves a little to the people's 
prejudices, lest they should go back to the heathen idolatry: the 
pure voice of reason and revelation was not considered sufficient 
to guard them against error; but they must be indulged in a few 
small delusions, because no other guard was sufficient to keep 
them from falling into greater ones: thus they were led on from 
one degree to another, by this accommodating plan, till the most 
enormous string of absurd ceremonies were invented that the world 
has ever beheld; saints by hundreds were canonized and worship- 
ped; pictures and images by thousands were exalted to the same 
dignity, and a cloud of darkness and barbarity overspread the 
world, until truth was fallen in the streets; justice and mercy 
abandoned the dismal plains of Europe, and humanity shuddered 
to behold the scene. 

Thirdly: It may be objected; that we ought to be very cautious 
lest we stir up a spirit of controversy, and enlarge the divisions of 
mankind, instead of healing them. Answer: 

1. If by controversy, we are to understand a calm and dispas- 
sionate exercise of reason and scriptural argument to lead one 
another into truth, I confess, I can see no danger in its being stir- 
red up. Our Saviour was employed in regular argument, almost 
through the whole course of iiis ministry: '' and Paul, as his man- 
ner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned witk 
them out of the scriptures." Acts, xvii. 2. " And again as he 



FLAN of SAtVAnON. 135 

reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come, 
Felix trembled." Acts, xxiv. 25. 

If such controversy as this is to be considered as an e\il that 
ought to be avoided, it is a little surprising that (lie Redeemer 
should set us the example, — that Paul should be in the regiilar ha- 
bit of doing it on the sabbath day, and that his arguments should 
be so successful as to be instrumental in the conversion of thou- 
sands, and even bring Felix himself to tremble. 

2. But if angry and revengeful arguments be the only kind ob* 
jeetedto, I readily acknowledge that truth needs not such weapons, 
and nothing but error can receive advantage by such a malevolent 
controversy. That we ought to guard against it, both in ourselves 
and others, is also admitted, without hesitation; and 1 suppose 
everyone will allow, that the most direct way to stir it up in others, 
is to make use of it ourselves. How then is it to be avoided? There 
are only two ways that I can conceive; and it will be worth while 
to inquire which will be the more likely to accomplish the end. 
One is, " to keep ourselves in profound silence, and not attempt to 
prove any thing; the other, is to subdue those passions and preju* 
dices in ourselves, which give rise to angry controversies, and do 
our utmost to persuade other men to subdue them, and follow the 
dictates of reason and revelation." 

As to the first rule, it appears at first view as though it would 
be successful; for if a profound silence be maintained, if no person 
be opposed in any sentiment which he holds, what ground can there 
be for controversy.^ Even the thousands of heretics that wore 
burnt at the stake, might have been spared, had they quietly held 
their peace; but they would indulge tliemselves in their carnal 
reasonings sometimes; and lest they should stir up a spirit of con- 
troversy, the holy mother in her prudence burnt them to death, 
and thus put them out of the way. 

But though upon a superficial view we may think contentions 
and divisions would be prevented by silencing the voice of reason, 
yet matter of fact proves the contrary: bitter controversies and di- 
visions arise not from the exercise of reason, but from the want of 
it; they rise, from those passions and prejudices, which if let alone, 
will break out among themselves, and "set on fire the course of 
nature, and it is set on fire of hell." If a party be united together 
under the influence of error and prejudice, they will indeed fight 
vigorously against truth and evidence, and while the attack con- 
tinues they will adhere to one another in the opposition: but sup- 
posing truth should withdraw her artillery, to accommodate her- 
H 



i2& AN ESSAY ON THE 

self to their prejudices, would contention be thereby preventedr 
Hot at all: the combatants would look about theoi for a while, and 
finding no other enemy, would fall out among themselves, and in- 
dulge those furious passions which can never be kept long quiet^ 
until they are subdued. 

There is ho manner of danger in a regular argument between 
two men, or two thousand of them, while the love of truth is the 
governing principle on both sides; because, while this is the case, 
each party rejoices to perceive good evidence from any quarter, 
seeing it tends to the support of that which he loves. If his oppo- 
nents should, by solid arguments, convince him that he has been in 
an error, he will no more be oflfended at his friend, for this piece of 
kindness, than he would be oft'ended at a physician, for improving 
Ms sight, by removing an obstruction from one of his eyes. 

And suppose prejudice should rise in arms against the truth, 
however calmly the evidence be exhibited; what then.^ Must truth 
and reason give way at once, out of mere complaisance to delusion 
and malevolence? Must all reasonable men be prevented from 
speaking the truth, or hearing it, for fear madam Prejudice should 
be offended? Though a dreadful dust would be raised on one side, 
in such a controversy; yet, while the others keep to the proper wea- 
pons of truth, and use no others, thousands of reasonable men 
would yield themselves willing captives, and would follow the 
transporting rays of evidence, notwithstanding all the dust that 
might be raised to conceal it from their view: and for us to si- 
lence the voice of reason, and omit a diligent investigation of 
truth, for fear prejudiced minds should stumble at it, or be roused 
to violent opposition, is just as ridiculous as to relinquish all 
right to stem the torrent of iniquity, for fear many sinners would 
be influenced to make a stand against us, and perhaps become 
more furiously bent upon their abominations than they were be- 
fore we disturbed their quiet indulgences. 

This counterfeit prudence has ever been hostile to the interests 
of truth, and has promoted the most dangerous errors among man- 
kind; and I think it may be said, of all the false rules of judg- 
ment here examined, as Mr. Fletcher said on a similar occasion, 
" They were brought forth in Moses' decayed chair at Jerusa- 
lem, nursed by Austin, at Hyppo, and educated by Bellarmine, at 
Rome." 

If protestants are resolved still to hold them fast, I know not 
how they could do it more consistently, or enjoy them in more 
complete perfection, than to go back to the bosom of the mother 



PLAN OF SALVATION. i^r 

church, where an infallible priesthood can cherish indolence, sup- 
port ignorance, silence the voice of reason, deprive the laitj of 
revelation, and thus settle all controversies, and defend her tame 
children, against infidels and heretics, by the powerful argument* 
of the holy inquisition. 



SECTION XL 

Whether certain errors ought to he believed for the sake of discou- 



It may be necessary, before we leave this part of the subject, to 
notice another prejudice, in which some good men appear to have 
been entangled: It is, that certain doctrines ought to be rejected 
without examination, lest the belief of them should tend to encou- 
rage sin. 

This supposes truth and virtue are not uniformly connected to- 
gether, but that sometimes, or in some cases, " delusion will be 
more friendly to righteousness than a proper knowledge of truth;" 
for if truth always supports virtue, and vice versa, the most ef- 
fectual way to discourage sin is, to labour to banish all delusio* 
from the face of the earth. 

It must be granted, indeed, not that the knowledge of truth tends 
to encourage sin, but that certain truths presented to those wh# 
are incapable of receiving them, may become the occasion of 
their stumbling into greater errors, and those errors may lead them 
into greater sins; and in this case, as before observed, it is genuine 
benevolence to withhold such truths from them, until they be gra- 
dually prepared to receive them. 

Had the pure spirituality of the divine nature — of the Mes- 
siah's government — and of divine worship, been revealed to the 
Israelites in the days of Moses, their infant minds would have been 
incapable of such instructions. They would probably have conclud- 
ed that the God who spake by Moses, was attempting to lead them 
into some strange chimeras which he did not understand himself. 
That the Egyptian gods were far more intelligible in their instruc- 
tions; which they would consider far more agreeable than those 
given by Moses, and which, in their view, contained far better 



128 AN ESSAY ON THE 

sense and censistency. Such errors would lead them back rapidly 
to the heathen idolatry; and therefore, the wisdom and goodness of 
God " hid these things for ages," and did not make them known 
to the world, " till the fulness of the time was come." 

But, if we conclude that those truths have any thing in their na- 
ture calculated to encourage sin, they ought to be hid for as many 
ages yet to come, or even forever; otherwise, we say God ought to 
give a revelation to encourjige sin. 

If it be granted then, that no trutJi, rightly understood and be- 
Jieved, will encourage sin; but that men take SH«h encouragement, 
by stumbling into error; and therefore, that caution should be used 
to guard them against those errors, by leading them on in the 
knowledge of truth as they are able to receive ik this has been 
stated and considered before. 

And who can tell when the world is in a fit state to receive certain 
truths but God himself, who perfectly knows the state and condi- 
tion of our minds? Shall a man hold back any truth from the world, 
which is supported by evidence clear to his understanding, under 
pretence that all men are children but himself? A person of this 
cast may spare his prudence, I conjecture, for the grounds of it in 
this case, are a sufficient proof of such a superficial degree of 
knowledge, that the world will not be apt to sustain any injury by 
his profound discoveries; nor is there any necessity for them to be 
hid for ages, except perhaps to save the credit of their author. 

That this notion never prevented sin in the world, but that it is 
replete with dangerous consequences, I think may be made very 
evident: let it suffice to illustrate the subject by two examples. 

1. It has perJiaps been thought, that we ought not to teach the 
people, "that God is not influenced by the feelings of grief, sym- 
pathy and pity, as we are, however clearly it may be proved, for 
fear it would lead them to distrust God, to indulge unbelief, and 
of consequaace to run into other sins." To guard them against 
these evils, we must leave them in their error, because in this case 
the knowledge of truth would tend to their injury. 

That it might be injurious for people to believe this to be true, 
or any thing else, merely upon our telling them so, I grant; be- 
cause this would be to believe without evidence; but let the truth 
be explained, and set before them with sufficient evidence to carry 
conviction to their understandings, and the belief of it will do 
them no harm. Let them understand, that God gave us such aifeCf- 
tions to supply the deficiency of our moral goodness, and that the 
reason we believe God has them not, is, that his goodness is sp 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 129 

perfect that he needs no such stimulants to make his creatures 
happy; and this proper view of the subject will never lead them 
to distrust their Creator. 

TJic opposite error, that of attributing human passions to our 
Maker, is so far from being preferable to the truth, that it has 
produced the most dismal cousequeuces. Sf:"ie have been led by it 
to conclude, that afler spending a life of wickedness, tbey could 
move the passions of the Almighty, and melt him into pity by their 
tears and groans. Others have feared he was in such a rage of 
passion against them, that it was very difficult to appease his fury. 
The heathens imagined that scenes of barbarity would gratify his 
vengeance, and hence they were led to buru their own children in 
the tire. 

2. Some have appeared to be suspicious of any doctrines that 
would give too full a view of xhekindnessorinercy of God, lest men 
should leap into presumptuous conclusions, and harden themselves 
in their transgressions. 

And is there any danger, think you, in believing God to be ful- 
ly as merciful and kind as he actually is, and can be proved to be? 
w ould it discourage sin more efteetually for the world to be kept 
a little in the dark, and be prevailed on to believe that there is 
some barbarity in God, in order for them to be restrained by the 
force of terror? I think not. 

Men are very apt indeed, to run into presumptuous conclusions, 
and hence to harden themselves in iniquity; but this never arises 
from that view of the Divine nature which is according to truth, 
but from some delusive notion of it. 

One error i© never to be cured by another, and I presume ag 
much sin has been produced by believing God to be less merciful 
than he is, as has been brought on by believing him to be more 
merciful than he is. 

Was any sin prevented in popish countries, by believing that all 
infants whodied withoutbaptism, were to be everlastingly damned 
.1 hell? or that God was delighted to see heretics burnt at the 
slake, and that his soul w HI be gratified to hear them and their in- 
fant children cry and groan in hell-flames forever? Was any sin 
ever prevented by believing that all heathens are to be forever 
damned, for not believing in Jesus Christ, of whom they never 
heard? Was any sin ever prevented by believing that most men 
were ordained to damnation, by the sovereign pleasure and un- 
changeable decree of God? Xo: such a barbarous divinity is just 
as unfriendly to holiness, as the loose tenets of those who represent 



130 AN ESSAY ON THE 

God as being a lover of sin, or who believe that there is nothing 
in his nature but mercy. And indeed they meet together in ih^ 
same point; for how easy is it i'or those who believe God is 
possessed of the evil principles of injustice and barbarity, to be- 
lieve he is possessed of the evil principles of partiality also? 
They can suppose he has a humorous fondness for them, and thus 
indulge themselves in presumptuous sins as much as the others. 
All the difterence is, that the others suppose God has this humour- 
ous fondness for all the world, and they suppose he has it for a 
part, among whomtbey stand in the first rank, or at least that they 
certainly have a share in this partiality, which was secured by an 
9,bsolute and eternal decree. 

And suppose men were brought to believe that God had no mer» 
cy in his nature, but took such pleasure in seeing his creatures in 
torment, that he intended to send all men and angels into hell; 
would sin be prevented by this? so far from it, that it would only 
produce terror and dismay for a little while, which would proba- 
bly degenerate into anger and resentment, and from that into 
atheism, 

I pray God to save good men from the pitiful hypothesis, that 
there is danger in following the light of evidence too closely, for 
fear it should lead us to some truth that will encourage sin! 

If any falsehood is necessary to promote virtue, why not tell 
lies to encourage holiness? Why not deceive the people for their 
good? Why not use pious frauds to support religion; or in plain 
English, why not do evil that good may coined 

Shall we keep men in falsehood, that truth may prevail, or do 
evil; that good may come? God forbid. Let the glorious nature 
and attributes of our Maker be understood according to truth: let 
us avoid attributing to God a want of justice and holiness, on 
the one hand, and believing in a gloomy and barbarous divinity, 
on the other; both of which are alike unfi'iendly to virtue and hu- 
man happiness: and let us never dream that God is so destitute of 
wisdom and goodness, as to put certain means of knowledge within 
our power, the diligent use of which is dangerous, and may lead to 
conclusions that w ould be naturally calculated to encourage wick- 
edness. Such inconsistencies do not belong to God, but are invent- 
ed by the imaginations of men. 

I grant a doctrine believed without evidence, even though it 
should happen to be true, will be apt to prove unfriendly to virtue 
and happiness: for if there be no proof of it, that we are able to 
discover, we have every ground to consider it either a falsehood, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. lai 

or a truth that the Avisdom of God has coDcealed from mankind^ 
because they are not in a fit state to receive it, and therefore, iu 
ail likelihood, the belief of it, though true, would, from their par- 
tial conceptions, cause them to stumble into some error which 
would lead them into sin. 

For example, let us consider the dying thief, whom our Saviour 
pardoned on the cross; it may be that he had long before that 
time believed that he should obtain mercy in his last hours, and, 
from that persuasion, had hardened himself in his ungodliness, as 
many have done in all ages of the world. If so, the thing which 
he believed was true, and came to pass accordingly. But he had 
no evidence of its truth, and therefore must have believed it upon 
the ground of hypothesis: other sinners are equally destitute of 
evidence in this matter, and have an eq[ual right to the hypothesis 
but forone that finds he believed the truth, perhaps nine hundred 
prove, too late, that they believed a falsehood. 

Now, in such cases, I acknowledge there is great danger, and 
the belief is of bad tendency, even though the object of their pre- 
sumption may afterwards be found to be truej but it will not 
hence follow, that there ever is danger in pursuing truth to the 
utmost of our abilities, provided we believe nothing as true, but 
so far as it is supported by evidence. 

The ease under consideration, is not believing the thing, on ac- 
eount of its having any sign of truth; but merely believing it upon 
the ground of fanciful conjecture. This is always dangerous, as 
I have attempted to make appear. Though the conjecture may 
chance to be true, in many cases, yet it is irrational to believe 
it till we have evidence of its truth, and is as much a violation of 
the method which Go<l has appointed to govern the belief of rea- 
sonable creatures, as if it should prove to be a falsehood. Though 
hypotheses may be formed, as Dr. Reid observes, to excite inqui- 
ry, yet nothing but evidence should govern the belief of any man, 
if he would continue safe and happy, or even lay claim to the 
prerogatives of an intelligent being. AVe should never assent, 
even with a doubtful or hesitating faith, until some grounds of 
probability appear; and after they do appear, he should be still 
on his guard, and refuse to believe with firm assurance, while the 
evidence is only presumptive or probable. 

Many arbitrary conjectures have been invented concerning the 
purifying influence of the fires of purgatory, or of hell: con- 
cerning another state of probation for sinners, after death: con- 
<;€ruing their admittance into heaven, at the day of judgment, or 



132 AN ESSxiY ON THE 

at some other time; concerning the nature of their torment, an4 
of their accompanying the prince of the power of the air: concern- 
ing their future annihilation, and the like. 

These rovings of the imagination commonly have a pernicious 
influence upon their votaries, and if the scripture even said no- 
thing against them, the most that could be said in their favour is<, 
that they are unsupported hypotheses; and therefore ought not t» 
govern the belief of any thinking man, till some evidence be pro- 
duced of their reality. I am apt to think it is impossible for anj 
such evidence to be produced; and we ought to be very cautious 
how we receive such opinions; for even supposing some of them 
to be according to truth, (that of departed sinners accompanying 
Satan upon errands of mischief, for example.) the belief of them 
being purely hypothetical, would be the same thing as believing 
falsehood upon a similar ground; (seeing both would be a depar- 
ture from all evidence) and if any man should hope to improve 
human knowledge, by leaving the proper methods which God has 
vouchsafed for our instruction, to launch into the bold and fic- 
titious regions of conjecture, let him look at the history of the 
world, from the days of Aristotle to those of Mr. Hume, and let 
him take warning by the wrecks he will behold, of religion, of 
happiness, of reason, and of common sense. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 438 

CHAPTER n. 

idpQN THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION. 



SECTION I. 

Ji view of the Divine Jlttrihute$» 

It is evident from the scriptures, tliat the coming of the Lord of 
glory to redeem fallen man, is the most important event that has 
occurred since theheginningof the world. Christ is the "foundation, 
the chief corner stone of the prophets and apostles. He is the 
light of the world, and the life of men. He is the mediator betweett 
God and man — the friend of sinners, and the beloved of the Father, 
full of grace and truth. He is the image of the invisible God — the 
Alpha and Omega, the first and the last — and in him dwelleth all 
the fulness of the God-head bodily" In a word, he is the Saviour^ 
the Governor, 2i\iA Judge, of the whole human family, and will reign 
till all enemies are subdued under his feet. We all want to kno w 
for what purpose he lived, died, and rose again from the dead: 
nor are we alone in being thus inquisitive, for these are '' things 
which the angels desire to look into." 1 Pet. i. 12. 

If the extent of this subject be such as aflfords matter for the en- 
largement of angelic knowledge, as the apostle's words seem to in- 
dicate, how can we hope to comprehend it completely, in our pre- 
sent state of being! The more we look into, and understand it, 
the more evidently shall we behold "the glory of God, shining in 
the face of Jesus Christ;" but never in this world, if in the world 
to come, shall we be able to comprehend the whole extent of its 
influence, or the immediate connexion between the cause and the 
effect. The connexion between cause and effect is a mystery in 
every part of the creation. Even in vegetation, in the growth of a 
spire of grass, our understandings have limits, beyond which they 
cannot penetrate. The operations of animal nature are equally 
difficult; much more those of the intellectual world. Is it wonder- 
ful then that the nature of God, and the great scheme of redemp- 
tion, should contain some mysteries which we cannot fathom? 
"Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was 
manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preach- 
S 



134 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ed unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into 
glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16. 

But though we cannot comprehend the whole of our great Crea- 
tor's works, either natural or supernatural; yet he has given us 
faculties whereby we may regularly enlarge our knowledge, and 
he calls us to the exercise of them: we ought therefore "to give at- 
tendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. We ought to me- 
ditate upon these things, and give ourselves wholly to them; that 
our profiting may appear to all." 1 Tim. iv. 13. 15. It is our wis- 
dom, duty and happiness, to endeavour to understand the great plan 
of salvation as well as possible: " of which salvation the prophets 
have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace 
that should come unto you: searching what the spirit of Christ, 
which was in them did signify, when it testified before-hand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Pet. i. 
10. 11. 

If then the prophets, who were under the immediate inspiration 
of the Holy Ghost, found it necessary, and considered it laudible, 
to use their understanding in diligent inquiries and meditations 
upon the glorious doctrine of redemption; surely we are justified 
in following their example, and I presume neither prophets nor 
apostles will ever reprove us for the inquiry, or persuade us not 
to search too diligently. 

The principle on which the necessity of redemption is founded, 
is, that man is a sinner, fallen and corrupted, and that God is not 
willing he should perish; but that he should come to repentance 
and salvation. Man, by nature^ is prone to evil, and by practice, has 
become a positive rebel. Misery and death have become univer- 
sal; but an universal remedy has been provided: for, "as by the of- 
fence of one, judgment come upon all men to condemnation; even 
so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men un- 
to justification of life." Rom. 5. 18. " For the creature was made 
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath 
subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall 
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liber- 
ty of the children of God." Rom. viii. 21. This glorious deliverance 
will be accomplished through our Lord Jesus Christ, " whom the 
heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, 
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 
since the world began." Acts iii. 21. 

As to the particular ends for which our Saviour came into the 
world, they need not all be enumerated: suffice it to say, he eam& 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 135 

to counteract the accidental consequences of Adam's sin upon the 
unsiuning part of the creation, according to the above quoted scrip- 
tures: — he came to destroy death by a general resurrection; — "lie 
came to fulfil all righteousness, and set us an example that we 
should follow Lis steps: — he came to bear witness unto the truth, 
and to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: — he came to 
teach us the good and the right way, to preach the gospel to the 
poor, and the opening of the prison doors to them that were bound* 
he came to destroy the works of the devil, and to reign till he shall 
put all enemies under his feet: — he came to die, the just for the un- 
just, to condemn sin in the flesh, to offer his soul a sacrifice for sin, 
that the world through him might not perish, but have everlasting 
life:*' he came "to give repentance to Israel arid remission of sins:" 
in a word, he came "to reconcile all things unto himself, whe- 
ther they be things in earth or things in Heaven!" 

But what was the great and general design of his coming, which 
comprehends all the particulars? I would answer, that he came to 
make such an atonement for sin, as should glorify God, in the 
grant of pardon to the guilty, in relieving the miserable, and in jjro- 
curing final salvation for the obedient. Am I right in this view of the 
subject, or am I wrong? What saith the scripture? That Jesus is 
exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, and that the whole of our 
salvation is obtained through the redemption that is in him, is a 
point so abundantly established throughout all the scriptures, that 
there is no necessity of confirming it at present by particular proofs: 
no man who believes the bible will pretend to call it in question. 
And that he came to glorify God in this salvation of sinners, is al- 
so undeniable, from his own express declaration. "Now is my soul 
troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: 
but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. 
Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified 
it, and will glorify it again;' "Jesus said, now is the son of man 
glorified, and God is glorified in him,^^ John. xiii. 27. 23. — xii. 31. 
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that 
the Father may be glorified in the *S'on" John xiv. 13. "I have mani- 
fested ihy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the 
world: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work 
whichthougavestmetodo.^^ John, xvii.4. 6. "Father,thehouriscome: 
glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee.^^ ver. 1. And 
suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly 
host praising God, and saying glory to God in the highest, and on 
ewih peace, good-will toward men.^^ hukc, ii» 13. 14. 



136 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Thus, it is evident Jesus came to make the salvation of sinners 
accord with the full glory of God; and not as some would have it, 
that he came merely to satisfy the divine justice, as if the §lory 
of God consisted in this alone. It is true he came to satisfy 
justice, because justice is a moral attribute of the Deity, and 
must be glorified as well as his other perfections; but goodness 
and holiness were no more satisfied for sinners to be pardoned 
without a Redeemer, than justice itself: therefore, as redemption 
reconciles the salvation of sinners with the glorious nature and 
attributes of God, every moral perfection is alike satisfied and 
exalted by our Lord Jesus Christ. 

What is meant by the glory of God? or, in what does his essential 
glory consist? " And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as 
a man speaketh unto his friend. And he said, I beseech thee, show 
me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass be- 
fore thee, and 1 will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee, 
&e. And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with hira there 
and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by 
before him, and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
gracious, long-suffering and abundant m goodness and truth, keep-* 
ing mercy for thousands, /or^mw^ iniquity, and transgression, and 
sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." Exod. xxxiii. 11, 
18. 19 — xxxiv. 5, 6. &c. 

Here the x'Vlraighty God condescends to inform us iji whj^t his es- 
sential glory consists; first, in goodness under its various forms of 
grace, mercy and long-suffering: second, in truth, and the third in 
justice: that will by no means clear the guilty. 

There is one thing in this passage deserving very particular at- 
tention; after proclaiming his goodness in various forms oi' expres- 
sion, and declaring heforgiveth iniquity, and transgression, and 
sin, God immediately adds, '-that he will by no means clear the 
guilty." Is not here the appearance of a contradiction.^ that he 
will forgive sin, and that he will not forgive it at the same time? 
Answer: it is said in the most unequivocal manner that he will 
forgive; but it is not said he will not forgive; but that he will by 
no means clear the guilty; that is, he will not excuse the guilty, or 
grant them any legal discharge from the penalty, by constituting 
them innocent. If they would obtain deliverance from punishment, 
it must be by his goodness granting a free pardon, because no 
other kind of a discharge will ever accord with his nature and 
government. There are certain means through which he will par- 
don the guilty, but he will by no means clear thepi any other way. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. isr 

not even by the means of redemption; for I think we shall find it 
was no part of our Saviour's design to exonerate sinners from 
guilt, by constituting them innocent, but to introduce them to a 
throne of mercy, as guilty rebels, that divine goodnes may forgive 
them. Some suppose God will clear the guilty, or constitute them 
innocent, by means of a certain imputation; but God himself de- 
clares, he will by no means do it; because he has determined they 
shall be delivered from the penalty no other way but by his 
"goodness, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin." This 
shall afterwards be considered more particularly. 

Again, we learn that the Lord is glorious in holiness, "Give on- 
to the Lord the glory due unto his name: worship the Lord in 
the beauty of holiness." And that ye put on the new man, which 
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,^^ Psalm 
xxix. 2. Eph. iv. 24. 

We learn farther that '^justice and judgment are the habita- 
tion of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face." "I 
will speak of the glorious honor of thy majesty, and thy won- 
drous works. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow 
to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is righteous in all his ways 
and holy in all his works." Psalm 89. 14—145. 5. 8. 17. And after 
these things I heard a great voice of much people in Heaven, say- 
ing. Alleluia, salvation, and glory, and honor, and power unto the 
Lord our God: for true and righteous are his judgments; for he 
hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her 
fornification, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her 
hand." Rev. xix. 1. 2, 

It appears from all these passages, to which many more might 
be added, that the glory of God, which our Saviour came to dis- 
play and vindicate, consists in hh goodness, justice, truth and holi- 
ness. 

We must now inquire into the meaning of those words, and 
endeavour to obtain clear conceptions of the moral attributes to 
which they call -our attention. For it is in vain we are told that 
goodness belongeth unto God, unless we know what the term good- 
ness means, and so of justice, and all the rest* 

The scriptures being written in human lalngnage, common wor^s 
are used according to their common meaning; the inspired writers 
rarely, if ever, give a definition or explanation of the words 
they use, which would swell the bible into volumes, but 
they leave us to learn the nature of intellectual and moral quali- 
ties, by consulting the dictates of our consciousness and moral 



138 AX ESSAY ON THE 

faculty, and by using our reason in comparing one part of their 
writings witli another, that we may draw just conclusions in re- 
gard to their proper signification. 

When God proclaimed his nature unto Moses, he simply in- 
formed him, that he was "abundant in goodness, forgiving iniquity, 
&:c.'' without explaining the nature of either goodness,forgiyeness, 
or iniquity. And m hy was this, but because he knew his creatures 
were able to acquire a right conception of these things by the dic- 
tates of their original faculties, v, ithout a particular definition of 
them by revelation.^ Had we no conception of them from the imme- 
diate dictates of our moral judgments, the bible would be as unin- 
telligible to us as to our horses: for if it were possible to give 
these animals a conception of goodness or justice, how ever faint, 
tliey would be capable of moral instruction as well as we; and were 
we or our children destitute of any original power to conceive the 
first principles of morality, it would be as useless for the bible to 
be presented to us, as to any other animal in the creation. 

The nature of those attributes, or qualities of an intelligent be- 
ing, which God proclaimed unto Moses, as belonging to himself, 
in all their perfection, is discovered by the human mind, not 
through the medium of either reasoning or of revelation, but by 
immediate and intuitive conviction; but as to their application, 
in the various cases of life, we need all the assistance we can ob- 
|;ain both from reason and from the oracles of God. We might 
here show the impossibility of their being proved by arguments, 
without first taking them for granted; but as a sufficient number 
pf examples have been already given, it may now suffice to appeal 
to the impartial judgment of mankind for the truth of the fol- 
lowing statements: 

1. The words good, or goodness, signifies those qualities of 
matter or of mind, that tend to the promotion of happiness. Those 
parts of matter which supply our wants, by nourishing our na- 
ture, or protecting it from the extremes of heat or cold, we de- 
nominate good things; and those qualities of a moral agent, which 
dispose him to exert his power in diminishing the misery and 
enlarging the happiness of his fellow-creatures, we denominate 
good qualities, because of their tendency to promote the weli'are 
of the creation. 

JS''atural good, taken in its most general sense, signifies happi- 
ness, together with the natural means of it, such as food and rai- 
ment, and the like. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 139 

J^Tatural evil consists in misery, together with the natural means 
of it, such as the poison of vegetables, or of serpents, or any 
thing else which naturally tends to destroy our life, health, or 
happiness. 

Moral evil, in general, consists in those qualities of a moral 
agent which dispose him to use his power in making his fellow- 
creatures miserable. ■ 

When goodness is applied to the mind and taken in the most 
general sense, it includes all attributes or properties of that mind, 
which dispose it to delight iu the performance of every action 
that tends to diminish the wretchedness and promote the well-be- 
ing of all creatures possessing conscious existence, and capable 
of torment or felicity. 
Perfect goodness, therefore, in any being, consists in "a perpetual 
will or disposition to support and perpetuate the happiness of 
every creature in existence, so far as it can be done consistently 
with justice." It has nothing to do with misery-, excepting those 
degrees of it that may be necessary- to promote its own benevo- 
lent designs. These exceptions are the three following: 1. A good 
being, who is perfectly innocent, may voluntarily enter into a 
state of misery, for the sake of promoting the happiness of others, 
where it can be done without infringing upon the rights of any 
other individual, in this case he gives up his own right in favour 
of others, in which consists the very essence of benevolence. By 
submitting to an affliction of short duration, he promotes the last- 
ing good of others, without abandoning a just regard for his own 
felicity, which he resumes and establishes himself in the enjoy- 
ment of, al'ter having accomplished the work of kindness in be- 
half of those whom he delights to bless. 2. A ruler may, through 
perfect goodness, inflict misery on guilty and obnoxious indivi- 
duals, either to reform the offenders, or for the sake of vindicating 
the rights, and defending the native liberty and happiness of the 
innocent. 3. When innocent creatures have received a disorder 
in their nature, the removal of w hich necessarily produces a mo- 
mentary pain, it is perfectly kind and gracious, for that j.\iin to 
be thus inflicted, for the sake of removing a greater evil, and esta- 
blishing the welfare of the subject in future. In this way Physi- 
cians have often inflicted severe pain, from the dictate of pure 
kindness and good will to the very objects who were suft'ering un 
der their operations. 

Now in all these eases the pain is inflicted for the sake of di 
minishing misery, or promoting happiness, Mhich is <hp ultiniale 



140 AN ESSAY ON THE 

end of the agent. But such a regard to the diminution of wretch- 
edness, and the enlargement of felicity, constitutes the essence of 
moral goodness, and therefore the action which inflicts pain, only 
so far as it is necessary to such a gracious end, proceeds from 
a benevolent intention, and consequently originates in perfect 
goodness as its source. 

Goodness exercises itself in different ways, according to the 
nature and condition of its object: that branch of it which secures 
and defends tlie happiness of others in exact proportion to their 
right of demand, is called justice; that which confers happiness om 
others above what they have a right to claim, is called favour, 
grace or benevolence: that act of kindness which bears with the 
manners of offenders, and grants them time for repentance, is 
called long-suffering, and that which grants them forgiveness is 
denominated mercy. 

That sympathy for another's woe, which produces a desire for 
its removal, and which God has planted in the human breast, we 
call pity, comjMSsion or humanity. This tender feeling was givcH 
to supply the place of goodness in fallen creatures, and it often sti- 
mulates those to relieve the miserable Mho are destitute of any 
regard to moral principles in their general deportment. It may be 
subdued by long and confirmed habits of evil; but it retains a con- 
siderable influence upon the generality of men, even upon those 
who refuse to be governed by a regard to justice; and the few wh© 
appear to have subdued the last feelings of humanity, are consider- 
ed as a kind of monsters in human shape. 

This sympathetic feeling appears to be an animal principle of 
action; it leads many to acts of kindness, in an instinctive way, 
and the inferior animals appear to act under its influence as well 
as man. I know of no evidence to convince us that it is essential 
to the nature of God, whose love of his creatures, and whose re- 
gard to the principle of justice and benevolence is infinitely per- 
fect, and therefore needs no such an auxiliary. That the mere 
feeling of sympathy is an animal impulse, appears from hence, 
that those animals show evident signs of it, who have no concep- 
tion of morality. But we have no reason to think any thing is es- 
sential to the Deity which is merely animal; and therefore we 
have no reason to consider such feelings as being any part of the 
divine nature. 

It is true that our Saviour, having assumed our nature, assumed 
all the sympathies of it, and hence the apostle says, " We have 
not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our 



I»LAN OF SALVATION. 44.1 

ihfii-mities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, vet with- 
out sin." Heb. iv. 15. How far, or in what manner, his being 
touched with the feeling of our infirmities may be essential to liis 
office as our Redeemer, will remain a mystery or a secret, perhaps^ 
until this mortal shall have put on immortality. The word^oo^ 
ness it is to be observed, is often applied in a limited sense, as be- 
ing another word for benevolence. 

2. Justice, abstractly considered, is that rule of moral conduct 
which accords with, and is limited by the rights of all beings in 
existence. Where there is a right of demand in any being, there 
is a corresponding obligation in others to act. with a sacred regard 
to that right; and the violation of justice consists in any voluntary 
action which deprives another of his right, and which was perpe- 
trated by an agent who had a knowledge of the other's right, and 
a conviction of his own obligation not to infringe upon it. When 
a lion takes away the life of a man, he is not guilfy of injustice, 
not because the action is involuntary, (which I think it is not) but 
because the creature has no conception of a moral right, or of a t-- 
corresponding obligation. '■■ ? ■s.<-%.^\ 

When a man's right is violated, he suffers an injury; that is, the /VvU 
unjust action tends to diminish his happiness or enlarge his misery. #^i^Uw4.^ 
But though the action may have this tendency, yet the agent is ^«^**^^ 
not unjust, unless he both knew the other's right, and had the iu-{'u^AtI< 
tention to act in opposition to it; a thing done accidentally or *^ P*"^ 
through invincible ignorance is certainly not unjust, otherwise we *''**^ ^ 
say a crime arises out of necessity, and a person is culpable for A*^***' 
that which is not in his power. *^t^JT^ 

The principle of justice in a moral agent, according to the de- ^^ 
finition given in the Roman law, is a perpetual will to render unto U*^u»^\ 
all men their right. A regard to universal right, or a perpetual $'\t^^^ 
desire and intention to promote it without any exception, is that : H^ 
love of justice which constitutes the character of an honest man. '>»'/<« 
A man who pays his debts merely from a fear of being cast into "^ ^ 
prison, or from any other motive but that of a regard to justice, 
cannot be considered as an honest man; for if he was influenced by 
other motives, without any regard to this, it was not for the sake 
of justice he acted as he did, and had it not been for other stimu- 
lants he would have violated it in practice. 

He who intends to injure another, but is never able to execute ^ 
his purpose, is an unjust man in principle^ and would be so in 
practice if not prevented, 

T J. 



1^2 AN ESSAY ON THE 

He who wishes another to be injured, and who would injure 
him, were it not for the fear of being detected, punished or expos- 
ed, is also an unjust man in principle. 

It follows that no man can be truly just without "loving his 
neighbour as himself, and doing to others as he w ould they should 
do to him." 

God has a right to the supreme veneration, love, and obedience 
^fj \ of all intelligent creatures. 

All innocent creatures, in a state of perfect order, have a right 
to the character of innocence, and to the consequences of it; and 
fc. no person can charge them with being guilty when are they not so, 
or punish them as such, without being unjust. 

When one creature knowingly and intentionally acts in opposi- 
tion to the right of other creatures, or of his Creator, he thereby 
forfeits his own right to the character and consequences of inno- 
cence, and deserves to be punished in proportion to his demerit. 
He has a right still to demand that the blame and punishment| 
shall not exceed the offence; and no being can charge him with 
more guilt than he has actually contracted, or punish him for 
crimes he never committed, without being unjust. 

If his children, or other creatures, are involved in misery iu 
consequence of his crime, which they would otherw ise have avoid- 
ed, he has injured them in defiance of justice, and this is a princi- 
pal ground of his demerit or ill desert. 

His guilt, however, is not in proportion to the extent of the inju- 
ry considered distinct from, but in conjunction with, his knowledge 
and intention to do wrong. I will suppose one man discharges a 
pistol at a tree, in order to scare a person who stands near it, and 
that the bullet glances from the side of the tree and passes 
throught his head; another fires at his neighbour with an intention 
to break his arm, but inadvertently shoots him through the heart: 
a third deliberately runs a sword through his neighbour's body, 
with the full intention to take his life. 

Here are three cases, in which the hurt or loss sustained by the 
sufferers is the same. But does any reasonable man want arguments 
to convince him that the degree of guilt is not the same in all 
those cases.'^ Had nothing followed in the first case but what was 
intended, the injury would have been comparatively small; but 
still the thing was criminal, because the intention was to scare a 
person by such means as he knew, or might have known, would 
expose his fellow -creature to considerable danger. But in the last 
case there was a full intention to deprive another of his life with 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 443 

a full knowledge of the immediate tendency of the meane made 
use of, to produce that efteet. 

When one or more creatures are brought into a state of misery 
or natural disorder, by the bad conduct of others, or by any other 
means, the person that shall deliver them from this state, through 
a regard to their happiness, without being under any obligation of 
justice to do it, and without violating any right of others, is truly 
benevolent. 

If in doing this, he should find it necessary to expose himself to 4- 
any kind or degree of suJOl^ering, which justice did not require of ^ * 
him, which should not be inconsistent with his resuming again his 
native happiness, and which was endured from a pure intention to 
glorify God and enlarge the happiness of his creatures, this suf- 
fering, far from being unjust, would increase the merit of his be- 
nevolence. To deny this, is to say it is unjust to be kind, and an 
innocent person must never be benevolent but where it costs him 
nothing. J^ 

If he should find it necessary to inflict a degree of pain on any 
of those creatures with his own hand, which justice did not require 
that they should endure, in order to prevent a greater evil or es- 
tablish them in a state of perfect happiness afterwards^ this suf- 
fering inflicted on them, far from being unjust, would result from 
pure benignity, which carries justice in its bosom, and bestows 
more happiness on others than they have a right in justice to de- 
mand. 

Injustice consists, not merely in inflicting pain on the innocent, 
but in doing it when it is unnecessary, and from such a regard to 
some selfish gratification, as makes the agent regardless of the 
rights or happiness of the innocent sufterer. But when the pain is 
necessary to counteract a disorder which w ould produce a greater 
degree or duration of it in future, or which would prevent a last- 
ing benefit; the person w ho inflicts it from a pure regard to the 
increase of happiness and diminution of misery, is perfectly just 
and good. Deny this, and we say at once, that all physicians are 
unjust, or else that they always inflict pain on their patients in ex- 
act proportion to what they deserve, and what justice inflexibly 
requires. 

These statements I must now take for granted: for their truth 
I appeal to the reader's judgment, and shall forbear tracing the 
absurdities w hich would follow from a denial of them, till I come 
to apply them to the several doctrines defended in the present es- 
say. 



144 AN ESSAY ON THE 

3. The moral attribute of truth, consists in a perpetual Avili or 
disposition to think, speak and act, with a sacred regard to truth, 
and never intentionally to do any thing that is calculated to deceive 
ourselves or others. 

It implies such a love of truth, arising from a conviction of its 
tendency to promote the happiness of intelligent beings, as shall 
Influence us to use all the means in our power to know the truth, 
to assist others to know it, — to guard against falsehood, to assist 
others to guard against it, — and to abhor all lying, deceit or dis-= 
simulation. 

So far as any man indulges prejudice, or refuses to give evi- 
dence a fair hearing, through party attachments, voluntary neg- 
ligence, or any thing else that depends upon his will^ so far he is 
deficient in the love of truth. 

So far as any man knowingly and intentionally uses sophisti- 
cal reasonings, or any kind of false evidence, calculated -to de- 
ceive others and impose upon their understandings, so far he acts 
in opposition to the moral attribute under consideration, and is so 
far culpable before that Almighty Bei^g, who requireth truth in 
the inward parts. 

Through the weakness of our understanding, we are all liable 
to fall into errors, and to lead others into them; but in such cases 
as do not arise from indolence, or any want of attention or can- 
dour on our part, we are altogether inculpable, because no person 
is blamable for not doing tliat which is not in his power. 

4. Holiness, 1 think, is a general term, not so properly applied 
to any distinct and particular attribute, as to the perfectiou of all 
moral attributes in harmony. 

A being that is perfectly benevolent, just and true, we call a 
holy being; and surely his holiness consists in the perfection of 
his justice, truth and goodness, and in nothing else; at least, if 
there be any other moral quality distinct from these, I have ne- 
ver been able to form any cou^eption of it. 

Shall we say holiness consists in moral purity and a perfect 
hatred of sin.^ But what is moral purity but the perfect influence 
of the attributes above mentioned? And what does hatred of sin 
arise from, but from a love of goodness, truth and justice.^ 

Mr. Wesley somewhere speaks, and I think very properly, con- 
cerning " holiness in all its branches." The several {branches of 
it are mentioned above, and as unmercifulness, injustice and 
falsehood are the branches of wickedness or unholiness, so theii^ 
opposites are the branches of holiness, which is a general term, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 143 

including eviery principle and action that is necessary to perfect 
rectitude. 

Although justice, truth and benevolence, may be conceived dis- 
tinctly from each other, yet I think there is a kind of unity in them, 
and a mutual dependence, m hich makes them appear to be insepa- 
rable. He who is so destitute of a regular regard to human hap- 
piness as to refuse to be benevolent, when in his power, will not 
perform acts of justice from a pure love of the principle, but from 
some selfish motive: he who is unjust, cannot be benevolent, and he 
who injures his neighbour by deceit and lying, is certainly unjust 
and unmerciful. 

The unity of those attributes, and that which is common to 
them aU, I take to be " a constant intention to enlarge happiness 
and diminish misery as much as possible.-' This implies a delight 
in the promotion of happiness, and a love for all good beings, so 
far as they are good, that is, so far as they are disposed and fixed 
in the intention to enlarge happiness and diminish misery as 
much as possible. 

Those glorious attributes belong to our Maker in all their ful- 
ness; abundant in goodness and truth — and that ivill by no means 

CLEAR the GUILTY. 

•So far as we act from a love to those perfections of the Deity, 
and from a regard to universal happiness, ^o far we partake of the 
image of God, in which man was at first created. " To love the 
Lord our God with all our heart," is to love goodness, truth and 
justice; and while this love is uniform, and is not interrupted by 
other motives, it will lead us to " do unto all men as we would 
have them do unto us." But alas! our love is too often wavering; 
other motives ming^ with our regards to righteousness; and in 
this consists the deficiency of human virtue. There is no mixture 
of other motives in the divine mind, and hence there is perfect 
consistency and uniformity in all his actioQs: He never deviates 
from a pure regard to general happiness, and never w ill do it in 
any period of eternal duration. But we sometimes yield to selfish 
influences, and hence there is an irregularity and inconsistency in 
our deportment. We often make blunders also through ignorance 
and unavoidable mistakes, to which the Almighty is not liable. 
For these our heavenlv Father w ill not condemn us; hut so far as 
our wrong conduct arises from an abuse of our power, or a neglect 
to use it, so far we are guilty, and every being of trijth and jus- 
tice must disapprobate us accordingly. 



i4A AN ESSAY ON THfe 

All God's perfections are in harmony with each other. If there 
were any inconsistency or contradiction in the divine attributes, 
they would lead to an inconsistency of conduct. If justice ever 
contradicts benevolence, then every being must lay one or the 
other of them aside, or contradict himself in practice. 

There has, perhaps, never been a more ridiculous or dangerous 
mistake in the world than the supposition that one moral attribute 
may contradict another: it has, if I mistake not, given rise to the 
most inconsistent and barbarous systems of divinity, that ever 
darkened the human mind, and w hich ultimately resolve them- 
selves into the Manichean principle, that the full disposition of 
essential wickedness belongs to God, as well as holinessl Surely 
if any attribute be a perfection, that which contradicts it must be 
an imperfection: if one be moral, its opposite must be immoral: if 
one be righteous, its contrary must be unrighteous. If we deny this, 
we say plainly « that virtue and vice are not opposite to each 
other, but that virtue or moral goodness is opposite to itself. 

Benevolence produced all happiness in the creation, truth di- 
rected creatures how to enjoy and retain it, and justice guarded it, 
and demanded that it should not be interrupted. What contradic- 
tion is there in this? None at all: the divine attributes agreed to 
promote happiness, and to forbid the introduction of misery; and 
the first act of an intelligent being, which injured others, or obstruct- 
ed the flow of happiness, opposed the influence of goodness, truth 
and justice, and this was the ground of its criminality* 

But did sin make any alteration in the divine attributes,*^ 
did it throw them into confusion, or change the nature 
of any of them? God forbid. Benevolence is as much disposed to 
communicate happiness, truth to conduct us to it, and justice to de- 
fend it, as they ever were. Hence w? find a w ise plan has been 
devised and executed from the dictate of goodness, and communi- 
cated to us according to that of truth, to save all sinners that will 
be saved without taking their principles of rebellion to heaven; 
and this they cannot do, because justice is as much as ever disposed 
to defend the general welfare. 

Justice never inflicts misery, even on the guilty, without some 
essential good in view; either to reform the offender, or to guard 
others from the influence of his crimes: and when it is thus neces- 
sary, it is surely as consistent with goodness as it is with justice. 

A principle which inflicts misery for no end, or for a bad one, 
is as contrary to justice as it is to mercy, and such a principle can-* 
not be imputed to tjie Almighty, without charging him with esseii- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 147 

tial wickedness. When punishments are inflicted on sinners with 
a view to their reformation, it is kind as well as just; and when 
they are punished without a regard to their individual advantage^ 
it is because they utterly refused the overtures of mercy, and is 
done with a view to the welfare of others. Thus are all just pun- 
ishmentsinflictedforagood end; that is, forthe purpose of promot- 
ing happiness and preventing misery. 

God is love, « and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and 
God in him." 1 John. iv. 16. The office of justice is not to con- 
tradict love, but to defend the medium through which love dis- 
plays itself, and diffuses tranquillity to all creatures that con- 
?fent to come under its benign influences. 



SECTION II. 

Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of his creatures; 
therefore his displeasure against it must be manifested, 

^ God has given his creatures a law or moral government, that 
fs, his truth has communicated certain rules of action to their un- 
derstandings, founded upon justice and goodness, with a conviction 
of their obligation to conform to those rules without any excep- 
tion or violation. That the law is founded upon those attributes, 
is evident from the following scriptures; 

«*Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy 
law is the truth. ^^ Psalms cxix. cxlii. 

^ "The law o^ truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found 
m his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn 
many away from iniquity." Mai. ii. 6. 

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment iioty, 3,nd just, 
and good,*^ Rom. vii. 12. 

The Almighty's governmentisJ?fsf,becauseitseeuresthe rights of 
aJl beings in existence: it is good, because its native tendency is to 
promote the happiness of all intelligent creatures, and miserj- was 
never introduced but by a departure from its precepts; it is true, 
because it has no tendency to deceive, but gives a correct view of 
the nature of God, and of the way in which happiness is to be 
enjoyed. Therefore it i*s hol^., because it supports every tnor^l 
principle. 



*y 



448 . AN liSS AY ON THE 

As the glory of God consists in his moral atlributes; and as 
those attributes are exhibited through the medium of his law or 
government; it follows, that the way creatures are to glorify God, 
is for them to support his government by cordial obedience to every 
precept of the law. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in 
you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 
Herein is my father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye 
be my disciples." John, xv. 7, 8. " Let your light so shine before 
men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father 
that is in heaven." Mat. v. 16. 

But how does the law of God promote the happiness of his crea- 
tures.^ I think it is done in two ways: first, by means of the under- 
standing; and second, by means of the affections.* 

1. By presenting the glorious nature of God and of his govern- 
ment to the understanding, the soul is charmed and possesses a 
conscious felicity from the intrinsic excellence of those objects 
thus presented to its intellectual discernment. In proof of this, we 
may appeal to two authorities: first, to the oracles of God, which 
declare in many places, directly or indirectly, that the influence 
of truth upon the understanding produces happiness. 

"Take not the word of truth out of my mouth; ye shall know 
the truth, and the truth shall make you free: his delight is in the 

* Mr. Superville says, in a sermon, "The soul is capable of 
three general affections; to know, to love, and to feel; which are 
three sources of actions and pleasures that are almost without 
number. — It is very certain that the soul, disengaged from the bo- 
dy, elevated above visible things, and admitted into the presence 
of Christ, shall know God in a manner very different from that in 
which we knew him in this life. What then can hinder the ac- 
tivity of the soul.P Is it not certain that an understanding, refined, 
extended, always in motion, continually employed in the discove- 
ry of new objects; always forming just ideas: always at the source 
of truth; always enlightened by him who enlightens every man 
that Cometh into the world; always capable of considering truths 
in connexion with their causes and effects, and in their relation to 
God and Jesus Christ; is it not certain, I say, that an understand-, 
ingthus refined, and thus occupied, will be a source of unspeaka- 
ble knowledge, and perpetual joy?" See the Methodist magazine 
for the year 1814, vol. 34, pages 95, 96. 

There can be no objection to this just and animating view of the 
subject; but I presume the author would be understood to mean, 
that the "three sources of actions and pleasures," which he men- 
tions, though distinct in conception, are uevertlieless united in na- 
ture; and that there is no feeling essential to an intelligent nature, 
but what arises from knowledge and love, or is inseparably con- 
nected with them. 



PLAN OF SALVATION 149 

law of the Lord, and in his law doth he vieditate day and night." 
Psalm exix. 43. John, viii. 32. Psalm i. 2. Now if the pious man 
delight in his meditations on the law, that happiness results from 
the beauties of it presented to the understanding. 

Secondly: we may appeal to the consciousness of every man oi 
reflection, and ask if he finds no happiness in the exercise of his 
understanding, while he beholds the glory of God, displayed in 
the goodness and justice of his moral government? 

2. The Jaw produces harmony in our affections, harmony with 
our fellow-creatures, and union w ith our Creator; from this results 
all the sweets of moral, social, and divine felicity. We have 
peace in ourselves, peace and love with our brethren, communion 
with God, and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is true, all our happiness 
. is from God; but it is communicated through the free exercise of 
our intellectual and active powers, by means of the divine govern- 
ment, which influences us by moral motives, and not by com- 
pulsion. How can we be happy in the love of God, or of our fel- 
low-creatures, unless we choose to love them? A forced love, pro- 
duced by mechanical impulse, is a most glaring absurdity. 

The law of God is calculated to delight the understanding, t» 
influence tlie will, to harmonize the affections, and to regulate the 
conduct: it unites the creatures of God together as a band of bro- 
thers, assimilates them into the divine nature, and thus conducts 
them to the eternal fountain of love and tranquillity. They par- 
take of the felicity of their heavenly Father, because tliey are 
governed by the same moral principles, w hich are essential to his 
own perfect nature, and which (with reverence permit me to think) 
constitute the everlasting happiness of Almighty God. I must 
therefore conclude that the full joys of the upper world flow to 
creatures through the channel or medium of the moral law, which 
was established by our benevolent Creator to promote this gracious 
end. 

But what saith the scripture? It saith love is the fufilling of the 
law: and every one who ever loved knows that love and happiness 
• are inseparable. Rom. xiii. 10. Again, the Lord Jesus sjiys, " As 
the father hath loved me, so have I loved you; continue ye in my 
love. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love: even 
as I have kept my father's commandments, and abide in his love. 
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in 
you, and t\mt your joy might befidl.^^ John xv. 9, 10, &c. The psalm- 
ist says, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the sonL Th« 
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The sta- 
U 



15-0 AN 1ESSAY ON TKU 

tutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: (he commandmerit 
of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes: the judgments of the 
Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are 
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey 
and the honey-comb. Moreover, by them is thy servant warned; 
and in keeping of them there is great reivard. Lord, I have hoped 
for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. My soul hath 
kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. Great peace 
have they which love thy laW; and nothing shall offend them." 
Psalm xix. 7, &c. — cxix. 145, &e. " But whoso looketh into the 
perfect law of liberty, and contiuueth therein, he being not a for- 
getful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his 
deed. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and 
reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Jam. i, 23, Prov. vi. 23.- 
St. Paul tells us "The commaudmeut was ordained to life;^^ and 
our Saviour, who certainly understood the nature and end of the 
divine law, says expressly, " I know that his commandment is life 
everlasting^ Rom. rii. 10. John, xii. 50. We are therefore war- 
ranted in the conclusion that the glory of the Creator and the hap- 
piness of all rational creatures^ are supported by means of his 
moral government. 

From this it follow s, that a violation of the law is an insult to 
all the attributes of God; an infringement upon the general plan 
of happiness; aviolatiou of all right; and consequently sin is a very 
great evil. Its native tendency is to dissolve the harmony of uni- 
versal society, to obstruct the influence of every righteous princi- 
ple, and to produce everlasting misery and disorder. Is justice 
roused to execute vengeance upon the sinner? it is; and all the other 
attributes are e<]ually insulted. Goodness is opposed to the rebel, 
because he obstructs the general flow of happiness; truth, be- 
cause hi* conduct tends to obscure the government; and justice^ 
because he has violated the rights of others. 

But would not the repentance of the criminal he a sufficient 
atonement, to influence the divine being to exercise forgiveness.^ 
AnsMcr: 

1. Repentance alone would not manifest God's abhorrence of the 
crime at all; every one might con&ider sin a very small thing; a 
little mistake of the judgment a mere trivial aftair, that, at any 
time would admit of forgiveness upon a bare acknowledgment: 
therefore (it might be said) let us all try if there be not some un- 
known advantage in it: at all events we shall lose nothing, for 
whatever be the consequences, it is plain we can be delivered 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 151 

from them when we please by a little confession and repentance. 
Will the great Lord of angels and men thus suiFer his government 
to sink into contempt? Will such a small acknowledgment satisfy 
his goodness, justice and spotless holiness? Will the great prin- 
ciples of his moral law be secured, and the general happiness 
maintained, by such a feeble and diminutive administration? 

2. It is a well known fact that sin has a pernicious influence up- 
on the affections and moral faculties of the sinner: he contracts 
habits ef aversion to the law and the law-giver, as well as amoral 
incapacity to recover himself. If then he were treated as an obe- 
dient subject, upon his repentance, while he had a secret prone- 
Bess of disaiTeetion to the government, the foundation would be 
laid for universal depravity. The sinner must therefore be reform- 
ed and renewed, that a proper provision may be made for his future 
allegiance: and this must be done by an arm more mighty than his 
own. And if God were to grant this extra assistance by virtue of 
his repentance alone, this supposes his confession would more than 
counterbalance his fault, inasmuch as it would not only enable 
him to obtain what he had before, but would merit an additional 
display of divine power; that of renewing a fallen creature. This 
would surely exhibit rebellion in a very favourable point of view! 
and would represent it as a small and trivial matter, which God 
is willing to excuse or pardon, and even to reward upon a bare 
confession or repentance. 

3. As the purity of God's nature would not thus be displayed, 
by a full proof of his hatred against sin, it would neither accord 
with goodness nor justice for rebels to be received to favour upon 
such terms; because it would weaken the motives to moral obedi- 
ence in the upright, and diminish their confidence in the divine at- 
tributes ©f their Creator. 

4. This notion, concerning the all-sufficiency of repentance, 
originates in the most unjustifiable arrogance and presumption. 
God assures us his nature demands another kind of satisfaction, 
and who is the man that, upon second thoughts, will venture to 
direct the Almighty what kind of atonement would be requisite to 
repair the injury done to his glory? 

5. If we suppose the government of God needs no other satis- 
faction than the repentance of the oftender, we consider it infe- 
rior to the laws of men: because it often happens that repentance 
or acknowledgment affords a criminal no security, and many have 
been executed without being asked whether they repented or not. 
Does the insulted authority of the Almighty require less gatisfaci= 



152 AN ESSAY ON THE 

tion than llie momentary laws of men? Such an opinion is a re- 
proach to onr maker, a support to human pride, a violation of* 
common sense and reason, and stands amongst -the whimsical abi 
surdities of infidelity. 



SECTION m. 

The attributes of God were glorified in the redemjjtion of the 
ivorldf by our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Consider wc next how God was glorified in the highest, in the 
redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ. To understand 
this in the clearest light, it is necessary to inquire how God would 
have vindicated his government, and displayed his glory if sin- 
ners had not been redeemed. 

It w ill be readily admitted that God was not bound in justice t© 
send a Saviour for fallen man: revelation assures us that love 
is the source of redemption, and God could have manifested the 
purity of his nature by executing the sentence of the law upon ev- 
ery offender. And if it be asked, why was it necessary for Christ 
to die for the salvation of sinners? we must ask a previous ques- 
tion: why must men or angels be punished on account of their re- 
bellion against God? A proper answer to this question will effec- 
tually answer the other, and will give us a just view of the de- 
sign of our Saviour's sufferings and death upon the cross. 

Supposing no Saviour had interposed for sinners, and God ha4 
executed the sentence upon every criminal; on what principle could 
this act of the Creator be accounted for? We must believe either, 
(1.) that he punishes sinners for no other reason but his own sore- 
reign pleasure; or (2.) that he does it from a regard to the safety 
and well-being of his creatttres in general. -^' 

If it be done for no other reason but his own sovereign pleasure, 
it will follow, (1.) that he has no regard to the promotion oi' hap- 
piness in this severity against offenders, and therefore, there is n6 
goodness in the matter: (2) that he has no regard to the security 
of the native rights of his creatures, and therefore it cannot 
arise from mornl justice: (3.) that there is some principle in the 
Peity that delights to inflict torment, when it is not necessary to 



PLAN OF SALVATION. isa 

secure the well-being of any creature in existence. These conse- 
quences are too evident to be denied, and too shocking to be ad- 
mitted by any reflecting mind: and we have no other alternative, 
but to admit that a benevolent and righteous governor inflicts pe- 
nalties on obnoxious individuals from a regard to the general 
good of society. ^ 

If punishments be inflicted by an earthly ruler, when they are 
not necessary for the support of good government, and the securi- 
ty of general happiness, all men of common understanding Avill 
agree that such an act in the governor's administration arises 
either from his caprice and ignorance, from his pride and selfish' 
ness, or from the tyranny and malevolence of his disposition. As 
nothing of this kind can be imputed to the Creator, — as he views 
guch selfish and wicked principles with unchangeable abhorrence, 
—the conclusion is incontestable, that his sentence against offen- 
ders arises from perfect justice and goodness, or in other words, 
from a pure regard to those principles of government, the vindi- 
cation of which is essential to the security and welfare of his obe* 
dient children. 

If, on the contrary, thieves and murderers are permitted to pass 
with impunity under any government, and are never punished for 
their crimesjwe justly infer that there is a deficiency of principle in 
the government itself, or in the executive. If the magistrate never 
execute the sentence of the law upon the violators of it, we conclude 
the principle of justice has little or no influence upon him, that he 
is indifferent to the public interest, and that his pernicious lenity 
arises from a partial fondness for criminals, and a secret disaf. 
fection to the principles of his own government. Now if the divine 
administration should leave any just ground for such suspicions, 
what darkness would overspread the universe, and how would all 
moral creatures be injured, whose happiness consists in their confi* 
dence in, and attachment to, the pure nature of their Almighty 
Father.^ To prevent such a general calamity, the justice and good* 
ness of God are engaged to support the dignity of his law, and to 
demonstrate the purity and impartial rectitude of his unchangea- 
ble nature. 

For these reasons the penalty of the law must of necessity be 
inflicted upon all criminals, unless the ends of government can be 
secured, and the divine attributes be fully and clearly manifested 
by some other expedient. Such an expedient has been devised by 
the wisdom of God, and executed by his goodness: ''For God so 
loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 



I3i AN ESSAY ON THE 

He could have vindicated his government without redeeming U8> 
by executing the sentence upon every criminal. If God had not 
*« so loved the world as to give his only begotten son, and deliver 
hi?n up for us all," the consequences would have been, that every 
individual sinner must die the death, or suffer the dreadful penal- 
ty. And why must this be done? Not to minister to the Almighty's 
pleasure, for he lias declared, and confirmed by an oath, that he 
has " no pleasure in the death of the wicked;" but to secure the 
influence of the government, for the sake of the general welfare. 
And how would this have been secured by the execution of every 
oftender.'^ Answer: It would have manifested God's regard for 
righteousness and good government: It would have manifested the 
great evil of sin, and its hatefulness to the pure eyes of the Al- 
mighty: it would have impressed upon the obedient part of the 
creation, a clear conviction of the strength and purity of God's 
unalterable laws: it would have displayed the necessity and unut- 
terable felicity of a cordial obedience, on the one hand; and the 
direful eftects of rebellion on the other: hence the influence of their 
rebellion upon others would have been prevented, the divine at- 
tributes vindicated, and the general flow of happiness secured. 
For these ends, and such as these, is punishment inflicted under 
any just and good goverament upon earth: and I hope none will 
impute to the Creator a tyranny that is execrated among mortals, 
and which is shocking to conscience and contrary to revelation. 

Here, then, every rebel must stand, without help, and without 
hope: in vain may he repent, pray, or make confession; because the 
general good must not be neglected to exercise partiality to an in- 
dividual. All sinners must die, unless some plan can be devised to 
magnify the law in their deliverance . 

But can the rebels devise any such plan.^ Alas! if it be left to 
them, the dye is cast forever: they can do nothing but sink still 
deeper into nWsery, unless some kind friend, more mighty than 
they, should interest himself in their favour. Can such a friend be 
found among all the armies of the sky? They all have to do their 
own individual part in promoting the divine glory, and cannot 
leave their own work to ransom another: because after they have 
done all that they can do, they have done nothing more than their 
duty: consequently each one for him&elf will have to support the 
government by obeying, while the rebels will have to do it by suf> 
fering. Is it so, then, that mercy is clean gone forever? Has the 
loving Father of the spirits of all flesh shut up his tender mer* 
Gie^ in eternal displeasure! Can he see his poor miserable creatures 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 135 

Uigulpiied in the horrors of insufferable despair! and can he de- 
vise no means wliereby his banished may be brought back, that 
they may not be irrecoverably undone! " Will he be pleased with 
thousauds of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil?" Alas! all 
this is unavailing, and lighter than dust upon the scale. 

But the Almighty Father waits not to be intreated; " he has 
found a ransom, and has laid help upon one that is mighty." The 
Lord execute th righteousness and judgment for all that are op- 
pressed. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and 
plenteous in mercy. He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor 
rewarded us according to our iniquities. For God so loved the 
"world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believ- 
eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God 
sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the 
world through him might he saved. "Psalms, ciii. 6, &c. John iii. 16, 
17. " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down 
his life for us: In this was manifested the love of God toward us, 
because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we 
mi^ht live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but 
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 
And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to 
be the Saviour of the world." 1. John. iii. 16. — iv. 9, &c. 

It is evident that our Saviour did not die to supercede the necesA 
sity of pardon, by giving us a legal discharge from all penalties; 
but to open the way for mercy, to deliver all those from suffering 
the penalty, who come boldly (that is, believingly) to a throne of 
grace; not to a throne of justice to sue out their liberty in the name 
of their surety; — but that they might obtain mercy, and find grace 
to help in time of need. 

The death of Christ manifested God's abhorrence of sin, as well 
as his love to the sinner, and justified the heavenly government in 
the pardon of all penitents, as well as it would have been done if 
all sinners in the universe had been forever damned. This was all 
mercy was waiting for: namely, for such an exposure of the dread- 
ful evil of sin, and such a demonstration of God's hatred against it, 
as should glorify his attributes, and restore the government to its 
native dignity and influence over his intelligent creatures. This 
was accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore every 
moral attribute was satisfied, that a free pardon should be granted 
to every sinner of Adam's race that would receive the Saviour for 
his Lord and king, or, which is the same thing, to every sinner 
that would 



<56 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Yield to his love's redeeming power 
And figlit against his God no more. 

As the Father never was disposed to punish any sinner, merely 
to minister to his pleasure, but to secure the ends of good govern- 
ment; so he never demanded of his only begotten Son, to sufler the 
whole penalty for the pleasure of his vengeance; but he Mas so lov- 
ing to every man, that rather than the government should be vin- 
dicated by the condemnation of the guilty, he even gave his own 
Son, yea, " God himself was manifested in the jflesh; that this hu- 
man nature connected with the deity, should expire under the ex- 
cruciating agonies of the cross, that poor sinners might be pardon* 
ed in such a way as should support the honour of his holy law* 
God could have chosen the other alternative, and have displayed 
his holiness and hatred against sin, by the damnation of the crimi- 
nal; butlove would have it otherwise. Rather than his apostate 
creature should die the dreadful death, the loving God himself 
comes down from heaven! He hangs between the heavens and the 
earth, a spectacle to angels and to men! ^Vhat heart of stone— 
what frozen, savage heart — can remain unmoved, and unconcern- 
ed at such melting love as this? 

Shame on the man that shall represent redemption as having its seat 
in the satisfaction and gratification of unrelenting vengeance, while 
all heaven is astonished at the bleeding mercy it displays! Pro- 
phets, apostles, and angels together are shouting and proclaiming 
the great love wherewith our heavenly Father hath loved us; and 
must we consider him as a tyrannical and malicious being, whose fu- 
ry must be appeased, by an infliction of the whole penalty upon 
his dear Son, before he will agree for one sinner to escape? far be 
the thought from every soul that has been redeemed by the blood 
of Jesus! Christ died to open our way to mercy, and not to raise us 
above the want of it. 

And hence the great name proclaimed unto Moses is verified 
to us: "gracious and merciful, abundant in goodness and truth, for- 
giving iniquity and transgression and sin." 

"Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from 
Bozrahi this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the great- 
ness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like 
him that treadeth in the wine-fat? I have trodden the wine-press 
albne; and of the people there was none with me: therefore mine 
own arm brought salvation unto me. Fear not; for thou shalt not 
be ashamed: for thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts i« 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ±57 

liis name: and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of 
the whole earth shall he be called. The Lord is well-pleased for 
his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law and make it hon- 
ourable. 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being 
justified freely by his g'race, through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus; w horn God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at 
this time, his righteousness; that he might be/«s^ and the /wsh^er 
of him which belicveth in Jesus." Isaiah, Ixiii. l.-liv. 4-, 5. — 42. 21. 
Rom. iii. 23. Hence it follows that the love of God gave a Redeem- 
er to open the way for his love to ftow to poor guilty sinners; and 
not that eternal justice demanded him as a criminal, in order that 
grace might be literally purchased, and thus bestow its favours 
for the sake of value received. 

Was God waiting for his goodness to be bought by a price that 
should be exactly equal to its value.^ Then surely he was waiting 
to sell his grace, and have a literal price of justice paid down, that 
should be equivalent to every degree of favour or benevolence he 
should exercise; resolving not to let any go out of his treasury 
without an entire and complete compensation: that is, in other 
\v ords, he resolved not to exercise any grace or favour at all, but 
merely to buy and sell, according to a literal bargain, and the 
complete standard of inflexible justice. It may indeed be objected, 
that although God demanded the whole penalty before he could 
be satisfied, yet his grace appears to full advantage, inasmuch as 
it was God himself who both devised the plan of redemption and 
executed it, without being under any obligation to do so: in this his 
goodness appears without a cloud, and there is no necessity for 
any new act of mercy to be exercised after justice is satisfied,' be- 
cause it was sufficiently displayed before. To this plausible objec- 
tion I would answer: 

1. That it was God who both devised the plan of redemption, 
and executed it, is readily admitted; and therefore, redemption re- 
sulted from his goodness; but if there was any thing done in the 
execution of this plan, which God in justice demanded, and then 
he had a demand upon himself, seeing he himself performed the 
thing demanded, as the objection urges,(and very properly) as the 
only proof of his benevolence. * 

2. To suppose the right of demand, and the bond of obligation 
can exist in the same being, so that he w ho claims and receives is 

X 



15S AN ESSAY O^ THE 

absolutely the same that owes and discharges the obligatiuTiy 
is to suppose the exercise of justice is a solitary operation 
that depends not upon the relation of one being with another: it 
supposes a right of demand in one, does not necessarily imply a 
corresponding obligation in another, but that the claim and the 
obligation maybe in himself alone! This, to me, is as unintelligible 
as to say a man's right hand has a demand upon his left hand, 
which is bound by moral obligation to discharge the debt, and can- 
not refuse it without being unjust. Suppose there should be a re- 
fusal to discharge the obligation; we must then say one person is 
deprived of his right, and another having acted unjustly has for- 
feited his right, and exposed himself to a penalty in proportion to 
his demerit; and yet the injured person, and the aggressor, the just 
person and the unjust; the aggrieved person, and the offender, are 
absolutely the same individual: in other words, that a person may 
be just and unjust, the injured and the violator, an innocent suffer- 
er and an unrighteous sinner, at the same time. If the obligation 
be not discharged, justice is violated, and the unrighteous person is 
deserving blame in proportion to his criminality: but who must be 
blamed or punished for the offence? Why, truly, the injured per- 
son himself, for there is no other; and the innocent must be invol- 
ved with the guilty by absolute necessity, because there is but one 
individual, and he is guilty and innocent at the same time. 

3. I think there is but one conceivable way, in which any being, 
on whom there is no previous demand, can bind himself from the 
dictate of benevolence; and that is by promise. It is supposed in 
the objection that it w as a matter perfectly voluntary for God to 
assume an obligation to himself in our favour; that he had a right 
to withhold this favour; and therefore, though he demanded the 
whole debt, yet he obligated himself to discharge it to himself, 
when he might have done otherwise, which was surely a great dis- 
play of mercy. 

Now if he assumed an obligation in our favour, and discharged 
it according to his just demand, he graciously condescended to 
bind himself, which could only be done by promise, covenant or 
engagement. 

But what conception can we have, in a consistency with com- 
mon sense, of a person binding himself by promise, covenant or 
engagement with himself alone, excepting that he simply resolves 
or determines to do that for the sake of others, which he is under 
no obligation of justice to do.^ And is it indeed true, that when a 
person kindly determines to do a favour, he thereby becomes bound 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 159 

£n a debt of justice to himself, M-hich is discharged by bestowing 
the favour, and which cannot be omitted after the resolution is 
formed, without a plain violation of justice? If so, a favour was 
never bestowed in the universe; for it is impossible it should be 
bestowed until there be a volition or determination to bestow it, 
and that volition or determination is supposed to bind' the agent in 
a debt of justice, and of course the act of bestowing it, which is a 
consequence of the previous determination, is only a discharge of 
that debt, and therefore no benevolence, because it could not then 
be withheld without a violation of justice. » 

But if a resolution to bestow a favour does not bind the agent 
by moral obligation, then it was impossible for God to bind himself 
in this way by promise, engagement or covenant, unless he enter- 
ed into covenant with some other being, and not with himself 
alone. '^' ": '^ 

And if it was impossible for God to become bound in a debt to ^^ *"*" 
himself, then Christ never came under an obligation of justice to 
God, unless it can be proved that Christ is not God, or that there 
are tuw Gods, so totally separate that one maybe bound in a debt 
of justice to the other. 

4<. Suppose there were two such Gods, we say it is the Father 
whose law has been violated by sinners: the Father is our God, un- 
der whose government we stand responsible. If then the Father 
inflexibly demanded the penalty to the very last mite, and the Son 
obligated himself to discharge it, the Son only has shown favour 
to us, and our proper sovereign, who demanded a penalty of us as 
the subjects of his government, has exercised no mercy towards -\' 

us; and consequently our obligations of gratitude for redemption "'"^ 

are confined and due to the Son alone. Here it will perhaps be ^ 
said, the Father and the Son are one: I grant they are; and this 
is the foundation of my argument; but the sophistry I am oppos- 
ing, first, supposes them to be two Gods, so separate and indepen- 
dent of each other, as to stand in the relation of debtor and credi- 
tor; but after the contract is made and executed, my ingenious op- 
ponent abandons his old ground, and, in order to secure a part of 
the benevolence, and the corresponding gratitude to the Father, 
he tells us very gravely that Christ and God are one. 

5. Perhaps it will be said, the Father's benevolence appears in 
this, that he both provided Christ as a substitute for sinners, and 
accepted him in our place, when he was not bound to do so. I an- 
swer, first, if he provided himself for our Redeemer it was indeed 
benevolent: but in that case he did not become bound, or demand 



160 AN ESSAY ON THE 

a penalty from himself, as has just been evinced. Second: if he 
provided Christ, as another being, and an innocent one, to be con- 
demned and execnted in the place of the guilty, >vhat right had he 
to do so? If it is right to release a sinner by condemning and pun- 
ishing an innocent person in his place, then surely it would be 
right for Satan to be released from hell, provided an innocent an- 
gel were condemned and sent there in his place. Does benevo- 
lence consist in showing favour to one by violating the rights of 
another? But Christ, you say, consented willingly to be oftered up. 
That he never consented to become a sinner, or to become guilty 
by imputation, I hope to prove in another place. But granting, 
for the sake of argument, that he consented to it; still the vhole of 
the benevolence was in him alone, because the right of option to 
grant the favour or withhold it, was in him and in no other. The 
Father, it is supposed, was determined to show no mercy, but in- 
flexibly to demand the whole penalty: Christ was not bound to en- 
dure it in our place, and the Father had no right to inflict it on 
him against his will: therefore, our receiving any benefit, or not 
receiving any, depended on the voluntary goodness of Christ alone, 
and consequently to him only we are under obligations of gratitude 
for any favour shown us in redemption. 

The only remaining subterfuge is, that the Father was gracious 
in accepting the substitute, when he was not bound to do it. But 
a few plain questions will remove this superficial vail: first, had 
Christ a right to discharge our obligation? Second, had the Fa- 
ther a right to any more than our obligation? was not our obliga- 
tion the very thing which he had a right to demand? If so, when 
Christ discharged our obligation, which he had a right to do, the 
Father had no more demand against us, and we were immediately 
as free from all just penalties and from any need of pardon as 
the unoffending angels of heaven. Say Christ had no right to dis- 
charge the obligation or sufter llue penalty for us, and you declare 
it to be unjust: say he had a right, and you affirm the Father was 
bound to demand no more, and to accept that or nothing; otherwise 
you make justice contradict itself, by supposing one being has a 
right to foi-bid what another has a previous right to do. To say 
the Father may demand more, after my surety has paid all that 
is due, is to suppose he has a right to more than his due, which is 
a contradiction. 

Thus I think the objection is fairly and honestly answered, and 
tliat the Antinomian scheme of atonement supposes God to be to- 
t^lly destitute of mercyc 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 16i 

As to the alarm that may have been excited, lest I should deny 
the doctrine of the Trinity, I hope it will be removed in the follow- 
ing section, "f-* 



SECTION IV. 

An examination of two opposite prejudices, founded-upon mystertf* 

Infidels will be apt to object that the preceding view of the 
subject is still too unintelligible and mysterious, that it is hard to 
see why the divine attributes must be displayed by a redeemer, 
and how this was done by the death of Christ upon the cross. I sus- 
pect some christians will, on the contrary, think it too plain, and 
that it savours too much of an attempt to explain away the divine 
mysteries. 1 wish to convince these opponents that two opposite 
prejudices, and not reason or revelation, are the foundation of 
their objections. 

The deist will say he is not yet satisfied with the doctrine of 
atonement or satisfaction for sins; because, though this scheme ap- 
pears less mysterious than some others, yet the mystery is not en- 
tirely removed, and he is resolved to believe nothing that he can- 
not comprehend. I answer: 

It is true we cannot have a complete comprehension of the man- 
ner in which all the various effects revealed in the scriptures are 
produced by the death of Jesus; but in this respect it is like every 
thing else in the creation, from the growth of a vegetable to the 
operations of our intellectual faculties. 

If nothing can be proved to us till we are able completely tp 
comprehend it, then surely it is impossible to prove to a child, that 
there are such things in being as watches and ships, till he is able 
to understand every part of them exactly: and he ought not to be- 
lieve us, but consider us as liars, whenever we affirm and attempt 
to prove their existence, because it would be to believe a thing 
which he cannot comprehend. 

An astronomer declares he can tell the very minute when the 
sun will be eclipsed: accordingly, he publishes to the world, months 
or years before-hand, the precise minute when the eclipse will 
take place: we open our eyes and see it come to pass at the very 



iQ2 AN ESSAY ON THE 

time foretold. Now there is no man of common understanding bui 
will allow the astronomer in this case gives sufficient evidence 
that he can foresee the motions of the heavenly bodies; yet not one 
man in ten thousand is able to comprehend how these things can 
be known by men. The common people then ought to give philoso- 
phers the lie, according to the deistical method of reasoning, and 
disregard all evidence they can produce in support of any fact, 
until they can clearly and fully comprehend the manner of it. 

Mystery is no criterion either of truth or falsehood: our belief 
should be governed by evidence. And when any principle is pre- 
sented to us as a truth, its being incomprehensible is no argument 
for or against it. Suppose a man tells me he saw a company of 
men and women not more than five inches high: I can comprehend 
this as well as if they were five feet high; but it would be foolish 
for me to believe it merely because the thing is conceivable: I 
Biust have evidence of the fact. I turn my attention to this propo- 
sition: " God upholdeth all things by the word of his power." Now 
I find it impossible for me to comprehend how this is done; but it 
is just as foolish to disbelieve it, because I cannot comprehend it, 
as to believe the other because I can comprehend it. In this case 
as in the former, I call for evidence: and upon reflection I find it 
supported by all the evidence of reason and revelation. I find if t 
disbelieve it, I not only embrace a greater mystery, but am invol- 
ved in absurdities shocking to every rational principle of my na- 
ture. It is plaJin, therefore, that a man whose belief is governed by 
the pretended criterion of mystery, is governed by prejudice and 
not by reason. As to the difficulty of conceiving why Christ must 
suffer, and how divine justice is satisfied thereby for man to be for- 
given, it shall be considered in another place. 

Some christians will probably think we ought to be very care- 
ful how we explain away the divine mysteries, or before we are 
aware we shall find ourselves landed on the shores of infidelity. I 
saw a small pamphlet once, the express design of which was to 
show that an attempt to avoid mysteries led a person (1. )from Cal- 
vinism to Arminianism; (2.) from Arminianism to Arianism; (3.) from 
Arianism to Socinianism; (-%,) from Socinianism to Deism: so that 
the only true system was that of absolute election and reprobation. 
The Arminians, it seems, who could not swallow all the mysteries 
of free-wrath, were the men who took the first step towards infi- 
delity. The pope will tell us Luther was the man who first depart- 
ed from the holy mysteries; and will be able to carry on the chain 
with as good a grace as the Rev. Divine who published the pam- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 163 

phlet above alluded to; he will also class John Calvin and his fol* 
lowers amoug the heretics who paved the way to infidelity and 
atheism. 

It may be worth while to inquire how far such cautions are rea- 
sonable, and when they may be considered the result of partiality 
and prejudice. 

1. As to the principle, that men ought to believe nothing bu* 
what they can comprehend, we grant, if constantly pursued, this 
would make a fool of any man: he would not stop at infidelity; he 
would not stop at atheism; for surely no man of common sense will 
say that atheism is a principle that has no mystery in it: it is ful- 
ly as mysterious as popery. In vain may aman run to universal scep- 
ticism for a cure: this is as full of mystery as atheism itself. There 
is no stopping place for such a person but perfect lunacy; he may 
wander from one mystery to another till he is distracted, and that 
will terminate his fantastical career. 

2. It is granted also that there is great danger and absurdity in 
a man's labouring to comprehend that which is incomprehensible. 
It is a shameful abuse of our understanding to spend that time in 
fruitless attempts to comprehend a subject of this kind, that ought 
to be spent in searching into the evidence of its truth. For exam- 
ple: I sit down to consider this proposition: " God is an eternal be- 
ing, who had no beginning." Now if, instead of examining the 
evidence of this truth, I spend my time in fruitless labour to un- 
derstand the nature of infinite duration, I shall gain nothing by 
the pursuit, but bewilder myself, and stupify my intellectual fa- 
culties. But if I leave the manner of God's existence out of view, 
as a matter beyond the grasp of my understanding, and merely stu- 
dy the evidence of an eternal being, nothing can be more clear and 
satisfactory than this truth, that the first cause must be eternal 
and independent. Infinite duration is as incomprehensible as any 
subject whatever; yet the evidence of it is equal to demonstration: 
for, to say there was a period of duration, in which duration had 
no existence, or that there was a time when there was no time, is 
an absolute contradiction; and if contradictions maybe received, de- 
monstration and every other kind of evidence must fall to the 
ground. 

3. As it is unreasonable on the one hand to follow the deist iu 
rejecting a doctrine because of its mystery; it is equally so on the 
other to follow the pope in believing it merely because it is mys- 
terious. As all trutli is supported by evidence, we have as good a 
right to examine the evidence that may appear for or againstan 



164 AN ESSAY ON THE 

incompreliensiTjle doctrine, as any other principle in the >vorld. 
But when we reject a doctrine because it charges God with being 
a barbarous tyrant, some will cunningly observe, that we reject it 
on account of its mystery. We reject it because it is condemned by 
the force of evidence; all the evidence of reason and revelation 
conducts us to the conclusion, that God is a being possessed of all 
moral excellence, and that there is no immoral principle in his 
nature. Any opinion which absolutely contradicts this, ought to be 
rejected, however some may artfully pass it upon the world as a 
holy mystery. Shortly after the synod of Dort it was openly pub- 
lished to the world, " that there is a kind of holy simulation in 
God," and that God absolutely created most men for the sole pur- 
pose of "illustrating his glory by their damnation." Popish priests 
had before been burning men to death by hundreds, and this mer- 
ciless barbarity they called an act of faith, a holy mystery that 
must never be examined or called in question, upon pain of damna- 
tion. If any goo(l meaning people should think it dangerous for 
us to get rid of such mysteries as these, I should be glad to know 
upon what evidence they adhere to such a conclusion. 

4. Another set of doctrines which are called mysterious, are 
those which involve plain and absolute contradictions. If we re- 
ject them because we cannot force ourselves to receive contradic- 
tions^ it is said we refuse to believe mysteries. It is said we go 
upon the deistical method of reasoning, that we will receive no- 
thing which we cannot comprehend, and that a few steps more will 
conduct us to open infidelity. This is surely a great compliment 
to the deists, that they are the only people in the world who are 
consistent with themselves! I, for one, cannot help thinking they 
do not merit such high praise; but that in truth their system is 
very inconsistent. If my objector think otherwise, it seems to me 
to follow, that his sentiment paves the way to infidelity far more 
than mine. 

If absolute contradictions may be received, we need not take 
the slow method of going from Calvinism to Arminianism, from 
that to Arianism, &c.butwe may at one step incorporate deism and 
Christianity together, for we may receive this contradiction; the 
scriptures are true: but the scriptures are false: Jesus Christ is the 
sonof God; but Jesus Christ is nothing but an impostor. These 
propositions arc nothing more than contradictions, and if they 
may be received, it is an easy thing for us to be believers and un- 
believers, pious and impious, rigiiteous and unrighteous, christians 
and infidels at the same time. 



FLAN OF SALVATION i6d 

But a mystery, it will be said, may have the appearance of a 
contradiction, when in truth it is entirely consistent; only we are 
unable to comprehend it, so as to prove or explaiu its consistency. 
This I grant; and if it cannot be shosvn to be really inconsistent; 
but on the contrary, can be supported by clear and good evidence, 
it would indeed be very absurd to reject it, merely because it may 
have the appearance of contradiction. 

But still there is no more danger in examining such a subject, 
than there is iu scrutinizing any other, provided we be governed 
by evidence in our researches, and not by prejudice. An appa- 
rent contradiction can never be converted into a real one; but on 
the contrary, if it be really consistent in itself, the better it is 
understoo-d, the more obvious will its consistency appear; because 
the reason why it seems contradictory, is, that we have such a par- 
tial understanding of it. 

As to the doctrine of the Trinity, which some are fond to consi- 
der as an absolute contradiction, it is as clear of the charge as any 
other truth, provided we regulate our views of it by the scriptures^ 
without recurring to the laboured explications of it that are to be 
found in human creeds and confessions of faith. 

The following plain scripture argument, from Dr. Watts, sup- 
ports the proper notion of it, if I mistake not, as we find it stated 
in the oracles of God: 

" Since there is but one God, even the Father, according to St. 
Paul, and since the Father is the only true God, according to 
Christ's own expression, then the Son and Spirit cannot have 
another or a different God-head from that of the Father: but since 
the Son and Spirit also are true God, it must be by some commu- 
nion in the same true God-head which belongs to the Father: for 
if it were another God-head, that would make another God; and 
thus the Christian religion would have two or three Gods, which 
is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel." — Watts' Sermons, 
vol. ii. page 447. 

But lest Dr. Watts should be suspected of leaning towards the 
Socinians, let ns recur to another authority: I mean to that of Mr. 
Fletcher, who was never suspected of heterodoxy concerning this 
article: 

" It is agr?ed on all hands," says he, "that the Supreme Being 
^compared with all other beings) is one: one Creator over number* 
less creatures: one Infinite Being over myriads of finite beings: one 
Eternal Intelligence over millions of temporary int«lligenoeg. In 
this sense, true christians are «ii unitarians, 

y 



166 AN ESSAY ON THE 

" Bat if the Supreme Being is one, ^vhen he is compared to all 
created beings, shall we qnarrel with him, if he informs us, that, 
although he hath no second in the universe of creatures, yet, in 
himself, he exists after a v.onderful manner, insomuch that his one 
eternal, and perfect essence subsists, without division or separa- 
tion, imderthree adorable distinctions, which are called sometimes 
the Father, the Son, eindthe Holy Ghost: and sometimes, the Father, 
the Word, andthe Spirit? Shall the thing formed saytohim that formed 
it, ivhy hast thou made me tosForwhy dost thou exist after such a 
manner? 

" Three sorts of people, in our days, capitally err in this matter: 
~ " 1. Tritheists, or the worshippers of three Gods, who so un- 
seripturally distinguish the Divine Persons, as to divide and sepa- 
'rate them into three Deities^ and who, by this means, run into Po- 
lytheism, or the belief of many Gods. 

" 2. Detheists, or the worshippers of two Gods. They are gene- 
rally called .y3rirt7?s, from Jlrius, their chief leader, who maintain- 
ed that there is one eternal God, namely, the Father, and one who 
is not eternal, namely, the Son, w ho was made sometime or other 
before the foundation of the world. Thus they worship two Gods, 
a great God and a little God. 

*« Never did we say or think, either that three persons are one 
person, or that three Gods are one God: these contradictions ne- 
ver disgraced our creeds. We only maintain that the one Divine 
Essence manifests itself to us in three Divine Subsistencies, most 
intimately joined, and absolutely inseparable: with the scripture 
we assert, that, as these subsistencies bore each a particular part in 
our creation, so they are particularly engaged in the securing of our 
eternal happiness; the Father tluG^y planning, the Son chiefly ex- 
ecuting, and the Holy Ghost chiefly perfecting, the great work of 
©ur new creation." See Fletcher^s ''Rational Vindication,^^ ^'c. 
in answer to Priestly, revised and finished by Mr. Joseph Benson. 
London edition, 1790. vol. i. p. 33, 34, 35. 

> Mr. Fletcher has here exhibited the full mystery of the Divine 
Nature, according to the scriptures: and in this there is no con- 
tradiction, 'i 

But in certain creeds and confessions of faith, there appears to 
be another turn given to the subject. We may there find many 
learned words of divinity, concerning an eternal generation —a 
covenant between the Father and the Son — a purchase made by 
the son, of a certain number of souls — the Father's obligation to 
see that the Son be not defrauded of his purchased property, and 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 167 

the like. We may tliere read concerning very God of very God 

co-equal — co-existent — co-eternal — consubstantial, &c. &c. 

The plain word of God gives better instruction concerning thii 
matter than those learned names, and all the others that have been 
^qsed in the sublime and orthodox theology. It teaches us that 
God. is an eternal Being, and that there are three that bear record 
in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three 
are one: but "never did we say or think, either that three perscms 
-are one person, or that three Gods are one God: these contradic- 
tions never disgraced our creeds." 

Deists appear to manifest a fondness, in representing the chrisr 
tian doctrine of the Trinity as a contradiction; but we defy tUem 
to show any contradiction in the account here given by Mr. Fletcher, 
r to evince that it contains any more mystery than many thingf 
in nature which they are forced to acknowledge as true. 1 sue- 
pect they are unwilling we should explain our views in this way^ 
because it deprives them of the argument ad hominem, by which 
they have long laboured to involve us in contradictions. 

And are some christians unwilling the matter should be believ- 
ed in this way? Do they wish something to be added, that may 
i<ive it more the appearance of a contradiction? For what? De 
they realJy believe it is a contradiction? or do they wish it to be 
elothed with such an appearance, as much as possible, in order 
that others may believe so? Is it then true, that any professed 
christians wish deists? to have full opportunity to prove out of our 
own mouths, that Christianity is founded upoji contradiction? } 
hope they have not entered into a secret combination against the 
religion of Jesus, to contribute secretly to, the designs of infidels, 
and to expose Christianity under pretence of supporting it; an^ 
Jiowelse some human creeds are to be accaunted for, seems hard 
to ascertain. 

^. Is it supposed that an attempt to explain the mysteries of the 
gospel naturally leads to infidelity? I hope an attempt to explain 
them, so far as to prove they are not contradictious, has no such 
tendency. To aliirm it, is to acknowledge at once that they cr« 
contradictions; for, what danger can there be in attempting to 
prove a doctrine is not incousisteBt with itself, except it be that 
the charge is just, and that there is no way te keep it from being 
proved a falsehood, but to keep it from ever bein^ seen in a clear 
iight? 



168 AN ESSAY ON THE 

I cannot help thinking those mistaken christiaits, who so re^ 
peatedly caution us against paving the way to deism, would do 
well to consider whether they themselves he not more guilty of it 
than those of whom they complain. 

Let us suppose, first, that a person a little inclined to infidelity^, 
is sincerely desirous to know the truth; he comes to an old Catho- 
lic christian, whom he finds with his creed in his hand, to obtain 
some instruction. He asks, what are the fundamentals of Chris- 
tianity? The christian presents him the creed for an answer. He 
looks it over, and asks his friend how those doctrines are to be 
made consistent with themselves: they appear to be palpable con- 
tradictions. Suppose his instructor to reply; Sir, it is against my 
principle to attempt any explanation of these mysteries: that would 
he paving the way to infidelity. They may be proved by several 
passages of scripture, as explained by our divines, and you must 
receive them just as you find Ihem. It is dangerous for yon to med- 
dle with these sacred things, by your uncertain reason; and you 
must be cautious how you indulge your metaphysical investigations 
upon the evidence of Christianity in general, or its mysterious doc- 
trines in particular. Let the gospel be its own witness, and take 
the doctrines of it, as you find them in this ereed, without attempt- 
ing to make them any plainer. ^ 

Now what must the inquirer infer from all this? Must he not 
conclude that his instructor wishes to prevail with him, as openly 
as he dare venture to go, to believe that he ought tn take the whole 
for granted without examination? "Does my teacher really believe, 
says he, that we ought to receive Christianity without evidence? 
pr does he himself secretly suspect that it i§ not founded in truttf, 
^and therefore thinks it dangerous to examine, lest its falsehooa 
should become too manifest? Does he really think a doctrine of 
divinity qught to contradict itself? pr does he think the christian 
doctrines are in fact a system of contradictions, and therefore 
wishes me to lay by my reason, and cautiously avoid looking into 
them, for lear their absurdity and inconsisterifey should so shock 
my understanding, that I could not believe th^m without doing Wo- 
lence to common sense?'' 

These wauld be his reflection^: and let the reader judge whether 
the instructions he received do not afford a plain presumptioti that 
their author had a secret suspicion,' either that the religion of Jesus 
cannot bear examination, or that the doctrines of his ereed mar 
peradventure be proved npt to belong to that religion. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 169 

Secondly, let ns consider the proud and passionate deist, who, 
from the dictate of his malice against Christianity, is resolved at 
all events that he will not believe it: What paves the way to this 
kind of infidelity? I think it is done by the conduct of those very 
persons, who att'ect to be such friends to religion, and who are sa 
apt to charge others with secret disaffection to the gospel. 

First, they directly or indirectly discourage the full attention of 
the mind in reasoning and diligent examination; but it is the want 
of such attention, or a refusal to examine, that confirms this per* 
son in his unbelief; therefore they encourage him in the course he 
pursues. 

Secondly, they discourage a candid and impartial examination, 
otherwise they would be willing for their mysteries to be examin- 
ed, as well as other matters; but a want of candour and imp ar* 
tiality is the cause of this person's unbelief; therefore they encou» 
rage him in that which is the cause of his infidelity, by setting the 
example themselves. 

Thirdly, they furnish this enemy of the gospel with very plau- 
sible arguments, with which he slays his thousands, and diffuses 
scepticism among his associates. 

« You cannot be christians, says he, without renouncing your 
reason, and this the professors of that religion very well know, as 
you may see by their wHtingS: they are |)erpetually cautioning 
their votaries against the diligent exercise of their intellectual 
faculties, which they) call carnal reason and. «<t'he almost magical 
power of metaphysical distinctions. Seine of their dearest and 
most heloved doctrines are plain contradictions, which tHey them* 
selves cannot deny: for when we ask them to 61j)lain the matter, 
and clear their dogmas of this chlarge, they gffi\^ly ans\ver, that 
these are holy mysteries', which' it is wick«d tb pry into, even so 
far as to make them consistent with themselves. It is very dan- 
gerous, they say, to penetrate too deeply into those sacred mat- 
ters, which they call bringing them to the profane eye of huma^ 
reason: a clear presumption, surely, that they have discovered the 
sandy foundation of this system, and wish to silence all inquiry, 
for fear others should make the same discovery." 

Now permit me to ask, how are we to prevent the spreading of 
infidelity, arising from the infiuence of sueh specious arguments? 
By filling our works with ridiculous cautions against a close ex. 
i-mination of the christian doctrines, and thus evincing in the face 
pf the sun that the gentleman's premises are true? I presume we 
could do nothing that would please him better. From the first ris^ 



iro AN ESSAY ON THE 

of popery to the present day, some professors seem to dread the 
approach of reason, and deists are glad to have it so: They know 
it furnishes them with the best arguments they have ever been able 
to use, and were it torn from them, infidelity must sn*ak into a 
corner. While divines continue to undervalue reason, the deist 
will extol it to the skies: not because he has any more real attach- 
ment to it than his adversary; but because he knows that while he 
can keep up high notions of reason, and prove from the words and 
writings of divines that they are afraid of it, he needs no better ar- 
gument, and none which will more successfully contribute to the 
support of infidelity. 

But let reason be delivered from the shackles of metaphysical 
sophistry and hypotheses: let comn^on sense be permitted to appear 
^viihout a veil: let pride, prejudice and party attachments have 
nothing to do in governing the belief of mankind: and then let rea- 
son take her stand upon self-evident principles, without any thing 
to obstruct her operations: you will see infidels and popish doctors 
of divinity alike retiring from the contest, or labouring with all 
their might to cast dust into the air, that they may hinder the rays 
.of evidence from shining on the world. 

Let all men thus use their reason, and the religion of the Lord 
Jesus Christ will rise like the sun in the midst of heaven, and chase 
the dark rais^ts of error from mankind. But we cannot answer for all 
the creeds: I suspect some of them would stand exposed in all their 
deformity, and perhaps a secret conviction of their being subject 
to it, has given rjse^ to that species of prudence which is so neces- 
sary to the support of ; a tenet which cannot bear examination. 
"Those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable;" says 
Dr. William Bate^Sj "that .involve a. contradiction; and there is no 
such doctrine in the jJbHstian re%ion." See Bates on Man's Re-' 
demption, page 1^6,y! ; , 



PLAN OF SALVATION. i7l 



SECTION V. 

17te doctrine of redemption stated in the words of several respect^ 

able authors, 

Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Wesley agree (the latter having ex- 
tracted the words of the former,) that " men who are condition- 
ally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified 
again for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the 
debt so forgiven be required at their hands; and all this without 
any change in God or in his laws. 

" Yea, in case the justified by faith should cease believing, the 
scripture would pronounce them unjust again; and yet without any 
change in God, or scripture, but only in themselves; because their 
justification doth continue conditional as long as they live here. 

" Justification is not a single act, begun, and ended immediate- 
ly upon our believing; but a continued act, which, though it be in 
its kind complete from the first, yet is still in doing, till the 
final justification at the judgment day.^^ They add, " that the 
justified may pray for the continuance of their justification; and 
that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of continual use, and 
not to be laid by, when we are once justified, as if the work was 
done." Wesley^s Works, vol. xxii. page 172, 173, 178. 

Again: " The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, dis- ^ , 
charging the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation to . 

punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ, r/i/x^ 
accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God. A of^^*^ 

" I call pardon a gracious act; for if it were not gracious, or - ' ' - 
free, it were no pardon. Let those think of this, who say, we have '" 
perfectly obeyed the law in Christ, and are therefore righteous. ''^'^*'^' 
If the proper debt, either of obedience or suffering, be paid, either ^' / 
by ourselves or by another; then there is no place left for pardon: ^i^^ji^^^^ 
for when the debt is paid we owe nothing, except new obedience;/^ ^.^^ 
and therefore can have nothing forgiven us: for the creditor can- W«^ *«^ 
not refuse the proper debt, nor deny any acquittance upon re- 
ceipt thereof." page 171. 

Here we have the authority of Mr. Baxter, of Mr. Wesley, and 
of a v»ry coaduiive argument, in support of all I contend for: 



in AN ESSAY ON THE 

1. That Christ did not properly or legally discharge our debt, 
either by obedience or suftering: for " If the proper debt, either of 
obedience or suffering, be paid, either by ourselves or by another, 
then there is no place left for pardon." 

2. If Christ properly paid our debt, there was no mercy exer- 
cised by the Father: " for the creditor cannot refuse the proper 
debt, nor deny any acquittance upon receipt thereof." 

3. The way Christ satisfied justice by his death, was, that he 
made it just for God to grant sinners a gracioiis pardon^ on certain 
conditions: for "The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, 
xlischargiiig the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation 
to punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by 
Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God." 

The next author I shall introduce is Mr. Whitby, who speak- 
ing of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, gives us the fol- 
lowing just observations and arguments: 

" It renders the death of Christ to procure the remission of our 
sins vain, and that on many accounts:" 

1. Because the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, 
dothrenderhis death unnecessary to procure any farther righteous- 
ness or justification in our behalf; for if by virtue of this imputa- 
tion we be as righteous as Christ was in his life, there can be no 
more need that Christ should die for us, than that he should die 
for himself, or any other should die for him; yea, then Christ dy- 
ing only for the benefit of believers, could not have died for the 
unjust, but only for the just, that is, for them for whom there could 
be no necessity that he should die, but only that lie shouhl live for 
them; seeing faith in him as a Mediator, performing perfect obe- 
dience to the law for them, must make them for whom he thus 
obeyed perfectly obedient, and therefore must have given them a 
full title to the promise, do this and live. 

2. According to this doctrine, there remains no place for the re- 
mission of sins to believers, for God neither did, nor could forgive 
any sin in Christ, because he was perfectly righteous, and in him 
was no sin; if then believers be righteous with the same righteous- 
ness imputed to them, with which Christ was righteous, they 
must be as completely righteous as Christ was, and so have no 
more sin, to be pardoned, than he had, and so no more need to be 
pardoned than he had; thus doth this doctrine destroy Christ's 
intercession for us, and also the necessity of his salutary passion, 
according to those words of St. Paul, "If righteousness," that js, 
"justification come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."-^- 
Whitby's Commentary, vol. ii. p. 229, 230. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 178 

From this quotation the following inferences are fairly drawn, 
as Mr. Whitby's doctrine; That if Christ's righteousness were 
imputed to us, we should be perfectly as righteous as Christ. 2. 
That this doctrine makes his death utterly unnecessary. 3. That 
it leaves no place, or no necessity for remission of sins. 4. That 
it destroys Christ's intercession. 

Nowifitbe a just inference (which it certainly is) that if Christ 
perfectly obeyed the law for us, he thereby raised us above the 
want of pardon; it will follow equally, that if he discharged the 
whole penalty of the law for us, he thereby raised us above the 
want of pardon. For the reason why sinners need forgiveness is, 
that they stand exposed to punishment, as a penalty of justice, 
which they cannot do after that penalty is entirely discharged^ 
and therefore such a discharge raises them as fully above the want 
of forgiveness as the imputation of a perfect obedience. 

1 must again produce two witnesses together, and two of the 
best, 1 presume, that have appeared in the world since the day* 
«f the apostles: I mean Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Wesley. 

The quotations are the production of Mr. Goodwin, but Mr* 
Wesley has made them his own, by incorporating them into his 
works, as the reader will find by readino;* the 23d volume, Bristol 
edition, 1773. 

« If Christ had fulfilled the law in our stead, till the uttermost 
period of his life, there had been no necessity of his dying for us. 
There is no light clearer than this. For if we stand before God, 
by virtue of the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to us as our 
own, perfectly righteous, we are no more obnoxious to the curse 
of the law, and consequently have no need of any satisfaction to 
divine justice, nor of any remission of sins by blood. There needs 
nothing more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteous* 
ness, or a perfect fulfilling of the law: this the apostle clearly lay- 
eth down, Gal. ii. 21. If righteousness be by the law (whether 
performed by ourselves, or by another for us) then Christ is dead 
in vain." Wesley^s Works^ page 10, 11. 

•Bgaln: — "It hath no foundation, either in scripture or reason^ 
to say that Christ, by any imputation of sins was m^de formally a 
sinner: or, that sin in any other sense w as imputed to him^ than as 
the punishment due to it was inflicted on him. So Bishop Dave*- 
nant makes the imputation of sin to Christ, to stand in the trans* 
latioH of the punishment of sin upon him. And in another place^ 
Z 



174f AN ESSAY ON THE 

Christ was willing so to take our sins upon him, as not to be madd 
a sinner hereby, but a sacrifice for sin." page 20. 

From this it eyidently follows: 1. That Christ remained joer- 
fedly innocent: 2. That he came under no obligation of justice to 
suffer, and consequently justice could never demand it of him as a 
penalty, otherwise justice can demand /senates of the innocent, — 
But hi the witnesses speak for themselves. 

" In this sense, Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty 
or curse of the law. First, it was the curse, or penalty of the law> 
now ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his 
suffering. Had not the curse of the law been incurred by man, 
Christhadnot suffered at all. Again: 2dly, Christ may be said 
to have suffered the curse of the law, because the things which he 
suffered were of the same kind (at least in part) with those which 
God intended, by the curse of the law against transgressors, name- 
ly, death. But if, by the curse of the law, we understand, either 
that entire system of penalties, which the law itself intends m the 
term death, or the intent of the law, touching the quality of the 
persons on whom it was to be executed; in neither of these senses 
did Christ suffer the curse of the law; neither ever hath it, nor 
ever shall be suffered, by any transgressors of the law that shall 
believe in him. So that God required the death and sufferings of 
Christ, not that the law properly, either in the letter or intention 
of it, might be executed, but on the contrary, that it might not be 
executed upon those that believe." page 21,22. 

Now, if the curse of the law has not been suffered by Christ, in 
the full sense, either in the letter or ijitention of it; if it never hath, 
and never shall be suffered "by any transgressors of the law that 
shall believe in him;" it is clear that it never has been, and never 
shall be suffered by either the sinner or his surety: consequently^ 
Christ died to make it just for God to blot out the penalty, or de- 
liver iis from punishment, by granting us a gracious pardon. 

Once more: " In this sense of imputation (and this only) the siD« 
of men may be said to be imputed to Christ, namely, because he 
suffered the things which he did suffer, in consideration of them: 
and these sufferings of his may be said to be imputed to us, be- 
cause we are rewarded, that is, justified and saved in considera-. 
tion of them. But that either our sins should be said to be im- 
puted to Christ, because he is reputed by God to have committed 
them, or that his righteousness, whether active or passive, should 
be said to be imputed to us, because we are reputed by God to 



PLAN OF SALVATION. t7§ 

have done or suffered the one or the other, hath no foundation 
either in scripture or reason." page 30, 31. 

" God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners, 
namely, faith in Christ, and he never sets up one way against 
another. Therefore to affirm, that the fulfiiing of the law is re- 
quired of any man, either by himself or by another in his stead, 
for his justification, is to affirm, either that a man that hath sin- 
ned, hath not sinned, or that, that which God hath said, he hath 
unsaid." page 33. 

Now I infer, if the fulfiiing of the law is not required of any 
man, either by himself or by any other in his stead, those breaches 
of the law which true believers have been guilty of, have been 
properly forgiven, and that the demand of the law in those cases, 
has never been rendered by any one, either by obeying or suffer^ 
ing; otherwise it cannot with truth be said, that the fulfilling of 
the law is not required of such a man, unto his justification, either 
by himself or by another in his stead. Consequently, if Mr. 
Goodwin and Mr. Wesley be in the right, Christ never died i% 
save sinners, by means of a legal righteousness, imputed to th§m 
or fulfilled in their stead, but to make it consistent with the na«. 
ture of God to grant pardon: that is, graciously to forbear requir- 
ing a fulfilment of the law in lliose cases, either by obedience or 
penalty. 

" Lastly, in case a man hath transgressed the law, and suffisred 
(whether by himself or some other for him) the full punishment of 
Jt, he is no farther a debtor to it, either in point of obedience, or 
of punishment, nor hath any thing to do with the law more or 
less, for his justification; because the punishment which hath 
been so suffered, is of equal consideration to the law, with the 
most absolute conformity to its precepts. So that as no man is or 
ever was, bound to fulfil the law twice over, for his justification: 
so neither is it equal, that he, that hath suffiired in full the penal- 
ty of the law, which is as satisfactory to it as the exactest obedi* 
ence, should be still bound to the observation of the law (whether / 
by himself or any other) for his justification; this being all one, as 
the requiring a second obedience to the law, after a man hath per» 
fectly fulfiled it once." page 98, 99. 

Thus, the whole 1 contend for, is affirmed in the most unequivo- 
cal manner. 

It is an easy thing, I know, for a mind blinded by prejudice, to 
affirm, that the doctrine here defended is false, and that Mr. Good- 



i-r% AN ESSAY ON THE 

win and Mr. Wesley have said nothing in favour of it; but I must 
request every person of candour and common sense, to look back 
at those quotations, and tell me if it be not declared most express^ 
ly, 1. That if sinners were justified, in consequence of having per- 
fectly obeyed the law, either by themselves, or by another in their 
stead, there w ould be no place for remission of sins. 2. That if 
they were justified, in consequence of a full discharge of the pe- 
nalty, whether by themselves or any other, it would be of equal 
consideration to the law, with the most absolute conformity to its 

precepts, and therefore would involve the same consequences 

And, 3. That this would be all one, as the requiring a second obe- 
dience to the law, after a man hath perfectly fulfiled it once. 

This being so fully in point, to establish every thing that can 
be desired in confirmation of the subject, and that from such high 
authority, I shall trouble my reader at present with the testimo-^ 
ny or judgment of only one more writer on the Arminian side. 

We find a short essay on the atonement, in the Methodist Maga- 
zine, founded on this motto from Dr. S. Clark " the design of me- 
diation was, that God would testify his hatred and indignation 
against sin, by consigning the pardon of it, through the blood of 
the Mediator." 

««God, who is not only a Being supremely excellent in goodness, 
but a most wise governor, was disposed so to dispense his pardon- 
ing grace to a sinful world, as at the same time to encourage men 
to repent, and to prevent their presuming on his goodness, and 
abusing its rich discoveries by greater corruptionand wickedness." 

'('What could more demonstrate the will of the Divine Being, to 
advance holiness, and destroy the very seeds of vice, than his sub- 
jecting, for this end, his only Son to the meanness and labours of 
a mortal condition, and the suiFering of death? 

^'If it be objected, where is the justice of punishing the innocent, 
that the guilty may go free; I answer, there is no injustice in per- 
mitting those evils to fall on the innocent, which to the guilty are 
punishn>ents of sin, when important ends of the divine government 
are hereby answered." 

Suppose a king, out of a concern to maintain his authority, and 
secure the future obedience of his subjects, refuse, even at the re- 
quest of his only Son to recall banished rebels, unless the Son 
would partake of their banishment, and endeavour personally to 
reclaim them to a sense of their rebellion and of their duty, and the 
jrriftce willingly untjertake this, it is certain by living a time with 



PLAN OF SALVATION. IT^T 

tlie banished, he suffers the punishment of their rebellion, though 
himself innocent; and this, without any injustice, because it is his 
own voluntary act, and because he hath the satisfaction of reclaim- 
ing the banished, and as a reward, sees them restored to forfeited 
favour, and receives himself a share in his Father's throne." Me- 
thodist Magazine for the year 1811, vol. 3*, page 30, 32, 34.. 

Leaving the reader to make his own comment on this quotation, 
I will close this section with a few remarks upon our twentieth ar- 
ticle. The article stands thus: <'the offering of Christ once made, is 
that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the 
sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is 
none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." 

Here it is unequivocally affirmed, 

i. That a perfect propitiation or satisfaction has been made for 
sin, by the offering of Christ. 

2. That this satisfaction is made both for original and actual 
sin. 

3. That it is made for the whole world of mankind. 

4. That it is made for all the sins of the whole world, and of 
course for final unbelief, unless it can be proved that this is not a 
sin, or not a sin belonging to any man in the whole world. 

Does our article mean by this satisfaction, that the sentence 
of the law was executed, by an inflexible demand of justice, and 
that all penalties were thus legally discharged by Christ for all 
the sins of the whole world.^ "If so, every sinner in the whole world 
is as free from all penalties, as God is free from absolute injustice. 

But we believe all men who die in their sins will have to suffer 
the penalty, as though Christ had never died for them: I therefore 
conclude the meaning of the article is, that Christ rendered such 
satisfaction as made it just for God to pardon any sinner in the 
world, on condition of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

Some appear to think Christ discharged all penalties, except 
for the sin of final unbelief; but when a sinner submits to the con- 
ditions of the gospel, is not his former unbelief forgiven, as well 
as his other sins? If so, they must confess the sin of unbelief hag 
)»een expiated, because it has sometimes been forgiven after hav- 
ing been indulged for forty years. Do they mean that it is the last 
act of unbelief, for which no atonement was made.^ And is this the 
only act for which sinners are to be punished in a future state? 
No: "For God shall bring every work into judgment with every 
secret thing, whether it be good, or evil. — Ecclesiastes, xii. 14^ 



- ^ IT'S AN ESSAY ON THE 

< r ft.^ Now it is just and consistent for sinners to be punished eternal- 

?«^^ ly, "for the very sins which were expiated by Christ," or it is 
not; If it is, then what necessity of his leaving some sins without 
. heing expiated, and why recur to this subterfuge to prove the con- 
Xtti-x t» sistency and justice of the sinner's condemnation? If it is not, the 
AU»/ conclusion follows, either that all for whom he died will infallibly 
•v^ be saved, or that there is some particular sin for which he did not 

^"■^ \ die and for which alone penitent sinners will be punished, without 
p^ A^^^^ever having -i« account or suffer for the generality of their trans- 
gressions. Thus we should contradict our articles of religion to- 
gether with the whole tenor of the scriptures. \ 



xt*^ 



SECTION VL 

The testimony of eminent Ccdvinistic Divines^ 

I propose now to show that our Calvinist brethren themselves 
are forced into this doctrine, whenever they attempt to give any 
reasoaable account of their views of redemption. 

To this end I shall take the liberty to give a quotation from 
Dr. Andrew Fuller, reminding the reader that those passages 
which directly point to the subject I have attempted to explain, 
are put in Italics. 

" The sense of mankind, with regard to the necessity of a Me- 
diator, may be illustrated by the following similitude. Let us 
suppose a division in the army of one of the wisest and best of 
kings, through the evil counsel of a foreign enemy, to have been 
disaffected to his government; and that without any provocation 
on his part, they traitorously conspired against his crown and life. 
The attempt failed; and the offenders were seized, disarmed, tried 
by the laws of their country, and condemned to die. A respite 
however was granted them, during his Majesty's pleasure. At 
this solemn period, while every part of the army, and of the em- 
pire, was expecting the fatal order for execution, the king was em- 
ployed in meditating mercy. But how could mercy be shewn.^ "To 
make light of a conspiracy," said he to his friends, would loosen 
the bands of good governmenU other divisions of the army might be 



PLAN OF SALVATIOJ^. ir» 

tempted to follow their example^ and the nation at large might be 
in danger of imputing it to tameness, fear, or some unworthy mo- 
tive." 

" Every one felt in thiis case the necessity of a mediator, and 
agreed as to the general line of conduct proper for him to pursue. 
He must not attempt,' said they, ' to compromise the differ- 
ences by dividing the blame: that would make things worse. He 
must justify the king, and condemn the outrage committed against 
himj he must offer, if possible, some honourable expedient, by 
means of which the bestowment of pardon shall not relax, but 
strengthen just authority; he must convince the conspirators of 
their crime, and introduce them in the character of supplicants; 
and mercy must be shewn them out of respect to him or for his 
saCke. 

" But who could be found to mediate in such a cause.? This was 
an important question. A work of this kind, it was allowed on 
all hands, required singular qualifications. 

" He must be perfectly clear of any participation in the of- 
fence,' said one, ' or inclination to favour it.' 

" He must,' said another, < be one, who on account of his char- 
acter and services stands high in the esteem of the king and of the 
public: a mediator in effect pledges his honor that no evil will re" 
suit to the state from the granting of his request^'' 

" I conceive it is necessary,' said a third, ' that the weight of 
the mediation should bear a proportion to the magnitude of the 
erime, and to the value of the favour requested ; and that for this 
end it is proper he should be a person o^ great dignity. 

" A fourth remarked, that he must possess a tender compassion 
towards the unhappy offenders, or he would not cordially interest 
himself in their behalf. 

" Finally, it was suggested by a fifth, that " for the greater fit- 
ness of the proceeding, it would be proper that some relation or 
connexion should subsist between the parties. 

" Meanwhile the king and his son, whom he greatly loved, and 
whom he had appointed generalissimo of all his forces, had retired 
from the company, and were conversing about the matter, which 
attracted the general attention. 

" My son, said the benevolent sovereign, what can be done in 
behalf of these unhappy men? To order them for execution, vio- 
lates every feeling of my heart: yet to pardon them is dangerous. 
If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator; and who is 
qualified to mediate in such a cause? and what expedient can be 



180 AN ESSAY ON THE 

devised by means of which pardon shall not relax, but strengthen 
just authority: speak, my son, and say what measures can be pur- 
sued? 

" My father,' said the prince, < I feel the insult offered to your 
person and government, and the injury thereby aimed at the em- 
pire at large. They deserve to die without mercy. Yet I feel for 
them. I cannot endure to witness their execution. What shall I 
»ay? On me be this wrong! Let me suffer in their stead. Inflict 
on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and the nation 
with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and 
faUhful allegiance* Let it be in their presence, and in the pre* 
senee of all assembled. When this is done, let them be permitted 
to implore and receive your Jlv^ljesty^s pardon in my name. If any 
man refuse so to implore, and so to receive it, let him die the 
death. 

« My son!' replied the king, « you have expressed my hearti 
The same things have occupied my mind; but it was my desire that 
you should be voluntary in the undertaking. It shall be as you have 
said. The dignity of your person and character will render the 
sufferings of aw hour, of greater account as to the impression of the 
public mind, than if all the rebellious had been executed: and by 
how much I am known to have loved you, by so much will my 
compassion to them, and my displeasure against their wicked con- 
duct be made manifest.^^ 

" The gracious design being communicated at court, all were 
struck with it. The only difficulty that was started, was amongst 
the judges of the realm. They, at first, questioned whether the 
proceeding was admissible. < The law,' said they, ' makes 
provision for ^ae transfer of debts, but not of crimes. Its language 
is, the soul that sinneth it shall die." But when they came to 
view things on a more enlarged scale, considering it as an expedi- 
ent on an extraordinary occasion, and perceiving that the spirit of 
the law would be preserved, and all the ends of good govern- 
ment answered, they were satisfied. " It is not a measure," said 
they, " for which the law provides, yet it is not contrary to the 
law, but above it. [Goodness is more than justice.] 

" The day appointed arrived. The prince appeared, and suf- 
fered as a criminal. Returning to the palace, amidst the tears 
and shouts of the loyal spectators, the suffering hero was embraced 
by his royal father; who, in addition to the natural affection 
which he bore to him as a son, loved him for his singular interposi- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. IW 

tion at such a crisis. « Sit thou,' said he, ' at my right hand! 
thoa^h the threatenings of the law be not literally accomplished, 
jet the spirit of them is preserved, the honour of good government 
is secured, and the end of punishment is more effectually an- 
swered, than if all the rebels had been sacrificed. Ask of me, my 
son, what I shall give thee!" 

" He asked for the offenders to be introduced as supplicants at 
the feet of his father, for the forgiveness of their crimes, and for 
the direction of affairs till order and happiness should be perfectly 
restored. 

" A proclamation, addressed to the conspirators, was now issu- 
ed, stating what had been their conduct, what the conduct of the 
king, and what of the prince. Messengers also were appointed to 
•arry it, with orders to read it publickly, and to expostulate with 
them individually, beseeching them to be reconciled to their of- 
fended sovereign, and to assure them, that if they rejected thist 
there remained no more hope of mercy. 

" When the proclamation was read, many paid no manner of at- 
tention to it; some insinuated that the messengers were interested 
men, and that there might be no truth in what they said; and some 
CTCn abused them as impostors. 

*' My heart,' says one, ' rises against every part of this pro- 
ceeding. Why all this ado about a few words spoken one to 
another.^' 

^ If a third person,' says another, « must be concerned in the 
affair, what occasion is there for one so high in rank and dig* 
Bity.^ To stand in need of such a mediator, must stamp our char- 
acters with everlasting infamy.' 

" I believe,' says a fourth, Hhat the king knows very well that 
we have not had justice done us, and therefore this mediation bu* 
siness is introduced to make us amends for the injury.' 

"You are all wrong,' says a fifth, ' I comprehend the design, 
and am well pleased with it. I hate the government as much as 
any of you: but I love the mediator; for 1 understand it is his inten« 
tion to deliver me from its tyranny. He has paid the debt, the 
king is satisfied, and I am free. I will sue out my right, and de- 
tnandmy liberty.'''^ See the Gospel its own Witness, &c. page 141, 
142, &c. &c. 

Mr. Fuller afterwards introduces Paine's objection, that « the 
doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniarj- jus- 
tice, aad not that of moral justice." And ia answering it he ob- 
A a •- 



■im AN ESSAY ON THE 

serves, " A murderer owes his life to the justice of his country: 
and when he suifers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a 
great character, by suffering death, could deliver his country, such 
deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. 
No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary 
transactions. In such connexions, every one perceives that the 
terms are used not literally but metaphorically^ and it is thus that 
they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ.'* 
Page 154. 

He says again, page 156, " Redemption by Jesus Christ was ac- 
complished, not by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise 
of grace in forgiveness^ but in which the displeasure of God 
against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exef- 
eised without any suspicion of his ]rd,\in§ relinquished his regards 
for righteousness,^^ Again: 

After mentioning some who " have considered the death of 
Christ as purchasing repentance and faith, as well as all other 
spiritual blessings, on behalf of the elect; and upon this ground 
have maintained that God is bound in strict justice, in respect to 
Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom hp 
died:" he observes, '^ The writer of these pages, acknowledges 
he never could perceive that any clear or determinate idea was 
conveyed by the term purchase in this connexion, nor does it ap- 
pear to him to be a doctrine taught in the scriptures. The notion 
of grace being bestowed, on account of value received, appears to 
him inconsistent with the freeness of grace itself, and with the 
perfection of the divine being, to whom nothing can be added or 
given which can lay him under obligation." 

He concludes upon the whole, " if we say, a way was opened 
■by the death of Christ for the free and consistent exercise of mercy ^ 
in all the methods which sovereign wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps 
we shall include every material idea which the scripture gives 
us of that important event." Page ±57, 

Now I must appeal to the good sense of the world, and ask if 
these quotations be not a plain defence and illustration of the sub- 
ject in question.^ Is it possible to make them accord with the 
Antinomian doctrine of atonement.^ No: they are a positive and 
express contradiction of it; and afford unequivocal evidence, that 
even those good men who have been unhappily entangled in the 
horrors of reprobation, are forced into our system whenever they 
attempt to give any consistent account of their views of salvation 
through Jesus Christ. . 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 18» 

Our doctrine is also advanced by the Rev. Samuel Davis, some- 
time president of the college in New Jersey. 

In his first volume of sermons, speaking of God, he say«, " Hi» 
goodness is that of a ruler, and not of a private peiiTon; a^d his 
pardoning of sin, and receiving offenders into favour, are not pri- 
vate kindnesses, but acts of government, and therefore they must 
be conducted with the utmost wisdom; for a wrong step in his in- 
finite administration, which affects such innumerable multitudes 
of subjects, would be an infinite evil, and might admit of no re- 
paration." 

« These things I hope are sufficient to convince your under- 
standings that divine justice is not that unkind, cruel, and savage 
thing sinners are wont to imagine it; but that God is just, because 
God is love: and that he punishes not because he is the enemy, 
hut because lis is the friend of his creatures, and because he loves 
the whole too well to let particular offenders do mischief with im- 
punity." 

«It may perhaps be objected," 'That to represent justice under 
the notion of love, is to affect singularity in language, to destroy 
the distinction of the divine attributes, and the essential differen- 
ces of things.' — To which I answer, 1. That a catachresis may be 
beautiful and emphatical, though it be always a seeming impro- 
priety in language. Such is this representation, *divine justice, 
divine love.' 2. I do not deny that God's executing righteous pun* 
ishment upon the guilty may be called justice; but then it is his 
love to the public that excites hiin to do this; and therefore his do- 
ing it may be properly denominated love, as well as justice, or 
love under the name of justice, which is love still. 3. 1 do not mean 
that the usual names of things should be changed, but that we 
should affix suitable ideas to them. We may retain the name of 
justice still, but let us not affix ideas to it that are inconsistent 
with divine love. Let us not look upon it as the attribute of a ty- 
rant, but of a wise and good ruler."-^<innoK on God is Love, vol. 1 
page 4>53. 4:34!, 

Here are two important principles laid down: 1. that goodness 
and justice operate in constant harmony, and can never be contra- 
dictory to each other. 2. That " it is his love to the public that 
excites him to execute righteous punishment upon the guilty be- 
cause he loves the whole too well to let particular offenders dg 
mischief with impunity." Hence it follows, that all the satisfac- 
tion goodness or justice wanted in the free-pardon of the guilty, 
was that the ends of government, and the general welfare should 



is* AN ESSAY ON THE 

be secured. This is effectually done by the glorious Redeemer, and 
therefore through him sinners may be freely forgiven. 

That this was Mr. Davies's judgment in the matter, is Tery 
clear from his own w ords in another place. For, speaking of re- 
demption, he says, "God being considered in this affair in his pub- 
lic character, as supreme Magistrate, or Governor of the world, 
all the punishment which he is concerned to see inflicted upon 
sin is, only such as answers the ends of good government. Private 
revenge must vent itself upon the very person of the offender, or 
be disappointed. But to a ruler, as such, it may in some cases be 
indifferent, whether the punishment be sustained by the very per- 
son that offended, or by a substitute suffering in his stead. It may 
also be indifferent, whether the very same punishment, as to kind 
and degree, threatened in the law, be inflicted, or a punishment 
equivalent to it. If the honour of the ruler and his government be 
maintained, ii' all disobedience be properly discouraged, if in short, 
all the ends of government can be answered, such things as these 
are indifferences. Consequently, if these ends should be answered 
by Christ suffering in the stead of sinners, there would be no ob- 
jection against it." — Sermon on " the Method of Salvation through 
Jesus Christ.^' page ±±4;, 

Again he says, page 116, "Was it difficult how to reconcile the 
salvation of sinners, and the public good.^ that is, how to forgive 
sin, and yet give an effectual warning against it? How to receive 
the sinner into favour, and to advance him to the highest honour 
and happiness, and in the mean time deter all other beings from 
offending? All this is provided f^r in the sufferings of Christ. Let 
all worlds look to his cross, and receive the warning which his 
wounds and dying agonies proclaim aloud; and sure they can ne- 
ver dare to offend after the example of man. Now they may see 
that the only instance of pardon to be found in the universe, was 
not brought about but by such means as are not likely to be re- 
peated: by the incarnation and death of the Lord of Glory. And 
can they flatter themselves that he will leave his throne, and 
hang upon a cross, as often as any of his creatures wantonly 
dare to offend him? No: such a miracle as this, the utmost effort of 
divine grace, is not often to be renewed; and therefore, if they dare 
to sin, it is at their peril. They have no reason to flatter them- 
selves they shall be favoured like fallen man; but rather to ex- 
pect they shall share in the doom of fallen angels." 

Nothing can be plainer from these quotations, than the great and 
interesting principle under consideration; namely, that Christ 



PLAN OF SALVATION 4.S5 

lever came to give the sinner a legal discharge from all demands 
of the divine law; but he bore the sins of the whole world in such 
a sense only, as should "reconcile the salvation of sinners, and the 
public good; that is, that God might /or^ive sin, and yet give a» 
effectual warning against it^ 

It is true, Mr. Davies advances some things in other places, and 
even in the same sermon, which I cannot reconcile with the above 
quotations; but this proves only that the good understandings of 
our brethren were so influenced and filled with the light of truth, 
that they were sometimes constrained to give their testimony in its 
behalf, though they thereby sapped the foundation of some peculiar 
opinions which they had unhappily espoused without sufficient ex- 
amination. 

President Davies was what some have termed a moderate Cal- 
vinist. I am convinced, from the character given of him, that he was 
a man of a generous mind, of a true spirit of christian piety, and , 



<M.t.C«v»\. '<^«*^ 



/^/.. 



of an excellent, improved understanding. Some may think this a '*' 
sulfteient reason for receiving all his opinions; but I cannot, because 
this rule of searching after truth was never given by our Heavenly ,^^ , 
Master, and if we were to follow it, we should be led to receive 'iit^v...*! y 
contradictions, as other men of equal character and abilities have ^i^.., lu^, 
espoused very diiferent opinions from those of his persuasion. - ^ **^ -^^^ 
Now let me appeal to my friends and fellow labourers, who glory *fi2C^^,M^ 
in preaching a free salvation for all the world: and permit me to *.*tutn, a^-- 
ask, whether we must be backward in proclaiming the whole truth, "^ ' 
while the light of it shines so bright that others are constrained to ^9,,^^- 
Dublish it abroad, notwithstandine; its opposition to their system, <*i.^}*>M^k 
and its inseparable connexion with oursr ' . / «../_ 

While they declare that Christ came to vindicate the govern- 
ment, and thus introduce the sinner to a throne of grace to obtain 
a free pardon, and yet inconsistently maintain that all for whom 
he died must inevitably be saved, or else his blood was shed in ^^^j^ ^ ^ 
vain: shall we involve ourselves in alike inconsistency, by saying .,, 
with one breath, Christ died only to make salvation possible for all, ,C , . , -^ ^ 
and with the next, that he really discharged all penal sanctions cr^ ..... . 

that lay against every sinner in the world? This surely would be 'U- (.^ ^ « 
more than making salvation possible for all, because it would * ' 



*K^^ 



c^' 



make the salvation of all men as absolutely necessary, as it is for ^^ ' 
God's law never to demand two penalties, or never to inflict the 
same penalty twice over. ,,-. <^ ' ... c- 



^>*»i(L 



J^. 






tM AN ESSAY ON THE 



CHAPTER III. 

THK DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE 
OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 



SECTION I. 

•3 brief view of the nature of forgiveness. 

The mystery of atonement, like that of the Trinity, has been 
thought too sacred for human reason to examine; or at least, that 
it is dangerous, not to say presumptuous, for men to labour by sub- 
tle reasonings to obviate the difficulties in which it seems to be in- 
volved. 

We have indirectly acknowledged to our infidel objectors, that 
©ur principles dare not approach the light, and their writers have 
gladly availed themselves of our concessions, to increase the ef~ 
feet of that insinuating ridicule, with which they wage a perpetual 
war against our benevolent religion. 

" I am the better pleased with this method of reasoning," says 
Mr. Hume, in his Essay on Miracles, "as I think it may serve 
to confound those dangerous friends, or disguised enemies, to the 
christian religion, who have undertaken to defend it upoi^ the 
principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded 
on faith, not on reason; and 'tis a sure method of exposing it to put 
it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure." Hume's 
Essays, vol. ii. page 198. 

Thus it appears, that Mr. Hume was very confident, that it is 
imprudent to bring the christian mysteries to a close inspection, 
and that those are dangerous friends to the christian religion, or 
disguised enemies, who attempt to defend it upon the principles of 
human reason Are not some christian divines of the same opi- 
nion? If so, is there not an agreement of sentiment between them 
and Mr. Hume.^ And who is nearest to infidelity, the man who 
agrees with deists, that Christianity is in danger of being exposed 
when too closely examined, or he who diJBTers from them in this 
important point, and says with Dr. Campbell, "We seorn te take 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 1S7 

aiielter in obscurity, and meanly to decline the combat; confident 
as we are, that reason is our ally and our friend, and glad to find 
that the enemy at length so violently suspects her?"* 

The reason why atonement has appeared to be such a danger- 
ous mystery, is, that the Antinomian notion of it is founded on a 
palpable contradiction. Justice and mercy have been considered 
as two principles in the divine nature, which were contradictory 
to each other, till they were reconciled by the Redeemer. Thus 
it would seem, our Saviour came into the world for the purpose of 
reconciling contradictions. 

Did the attributes of God contradict each other before sin en- 
tered into the creation? If not, they could not do it afterwards, 
unless we say, sin made a change in the Divine Nature: and if 
they were always opposed to each other, till Christ reconciled 
them, it follows, that he came from Heaven to change the nature 
of that Immortal Being, with whom is no variableness or shadow 
of turning. 

The divine perfections agreed as harmoniously in the plan of 
restoring creatures from guilt and misery, after their fall, as in 
their creation or government before; and as goodness was no more 
disposed to appoint a plan of restoring God's creatures, which 
should be contrary to justice, than in first forming a plan of gov- 
erning them, it is evident that justice was as far from contradict- 
ing its operations in one case as in the other. 

If justice demanded that sin should never be forgiven, but that 
all sinners should stand condemned, until it should be unjust to 
condemn them any longer; and if Christ came to render this 
demand, it is evident his death was so far from reconciling justice 
and mercy together, that it confirmed their irreconcilable opposi- 
tion, and blotted mercy out of existence. 

But nothing is more evident from the Bible than this soul-cheer- 
ing truth, that mercy belongeth unto God, and is daily exercised 
towards the fallen children of men. 

Among all the diiferent sectaries in Christendom, I have never 
heard of any who professedly called this principle into question, 
or denied its being an essential doctrine of revelation. However 
we differ in other matters, we all profess to agree in the existence 
of this gracious attribute, on which we depend for eternal life, and 
without which we could never hope for pardon. The unmerited 



See his Lectures and Dissertations, bound together, p. 429. 



188 AN ESSAY ON THE 

kindness of our Maker, not only dijQTuses happiness through the 
heavenly regions, but extends its benign influences to the fallen 
and the guilty. This is evident from the structure of the Heavens 
and the earth; more so, from the testimony of Moses and the 
Prophets; and more still from the gospel of Jesus Christ, which 
having "brought life and immortality to light, has proclaimed a 
gracious pardon to the world, free for every sinner who will re- 
pent and believe the record God has given of his Son." 

The doctrine of forgiveness is as universally admitted, among 
christians, as that of the Divine Mercy, and is justly considered as 
a consequence of it; but the nature of this act of pardon or justifi- 
cation has long been a subject of controversy, chiefly, perhaps, 
because the disputants did not understand each other, and were 
not fully aware of the ambiguity of their language, and the indis- 
tinctness of their conceptions. 

Let ns endeavour to conceive this subject clearly, that we may 
know what we mean, and what we believe concerning it: till we 
do this we shall be in danger of disputing about words, and of dis- 
senting from those, who, when they rightly conceive our meanings 
are of the same sentiment with ourselves. 

The act of pardon is an act of the divine will: it is no act of the 
sinner's will, nor does it consist in any change produced upon him. 
It is true, indeed, that the performance of the condition on which 
the pardon is suspended is an act of the sinner's will: it is true like- 
wise, that he experiences a gracious change wrought in him, as a 
consequence of his pardon; but if we say, on the one hand, that the 
pardon consists in the act of the sinner's will, we say he forgives 
himself; and if, on the other, that it consists in the change produc- 
ed in him, we confound pardon with sanctification, and suppose 
the sinner stands in the same relation to God he did before; seeing 
we make forgiveness signify merely a change of his nature, 
which is surely as distinct from forgiveness, as the act of a phy- 
sician is different from that of a governor. 

Many justified believers still need the sanctification of their na- 
ture, but all men before they are justified, need deliverance from 
the penal consequences of their crimes, as well as from their natu- 
ral effects: none but God can grant us this deliverance, and that 
act of his will which remits the sentence, or forbears the execution, 
of it, is what we understand by the grant of pardon. 

The proper and only subject of forgiveness is a rebel who justly 
deserves the penalty. It is ridiculous to talk of granting pardon 
to the innocent. And if a sinner be delivered from the sentence 
any other way than by an act of pardon, he certainly needs no for- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 1B» 

giVeness, because he has, by other means, obtained as complete a 
deliverance from the sentence of death, as any act of pardon coiid 
possibly afford him. If a sinner be now exposed to the penalty, it 
stands in full force against him^ and it would be just for the sen* 
tence to be executed upon him immediately; if he be not exposed 
to it, and yet has never obtained forgiveness, it follows that he 
has been delivered some other way, and upon principles of pure 
justice will be eternally free from the infliction of it, though no 
pardon should ever be granted. 

The principle from which forgiveness flows, is that of benevo- 
lence. 

Sinners, by their rebellion, have forfeited their right to demand 
exemption from the curse due to the guilty; the death of Christ 
was not intended to restore that right to sinners, otherwise they 
would have the same demand they had in a state of innocence, 
and consequently be as free from the want of pardon. 

God is not bound in a debt of justice to any criminal, however 
penitent, seeing the claim of innocence is forfeited by sin; and as 
there is no right of demand in the sinner, there can be no corres- 
ponding obligation on his sovereign to remit the sentence, or deli* 
ver him from the penalty. 

But it must be carefully observed in the mean time, that al- 
though God is under no obligation, in his individual relation to the 
criminal, yet he has graciously bound himself by promise, to paf- 
don all sinners who will repent and believe the gospel. This pro* 
mise he has confirmed by an oath, and sealed it by the blood of 
the everlasting covenant. Therefore his veracity, and of course 
his unchangeable character, is pledged before the whole universe, 
to receive and pardon all sinners, who will truly submit to the go- 
vernment of the Lord Jesus Christ: consequently he could not vi- 
olate those promises and sacred pledges, without involving his 
character and government in such darkness and contradiction, as 
would throw the minds of all his innocent children into confusion. 
In this sense he4fcy be said to be bound by his justice; but this bond 
arises, not from a restoration of the sinner's right to the demands 
of innocence, but from his own voluntary goodness, pledging him- 
self by promise or benevolent engagement, to remit the sentence 
on certain specified conditions. 

Every innocent creature, as before observed, has an individual 
and inherent right to the character and consequences of innocence: 
of course he has a just demand upon every being, not to destroy 
B b 



iOo AN ESSAY ON THE 

iiis character of innocence by false imputations of guilt, or to pun- 
ish him as a criminal. But all this being forfeited by sin, the re- 
hel has no demand or claim to the character of innocence, or to be 
exempted from the penalty of justice. Neither the death of 
Christ/nor the promises of God were ever intended to restore th« 
original rights of innocence to sinners in this probationary state j 
but to entitle them to the privilege of obtaining pardon and salva- 
tion, on gospel conditions, from the clemency of their gracious so- 
vereign. 

After their probation shall have ended; after every act of bene- 
volence shall have been completed; and after their intelligent and 
moral nature shall have been restored and perfectly fitted for the 
regions of eternal happiness; — then the rights of innocence will 
be theirs in common >vith all the heavenly hosts: but we have no 
evidence to believe any man is in this state till he is fully sealed 
to the day of eternal redemption. 

Whether any man be thus fully sealed on this side death, I pre- 
sume not to decide; but that seal, whenever he receives it, mast be 
considered as the closing point of his probation. 

Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wesley agree, that " justification is not a 
single act, begun and ended immediately upon our believing; but 
a continued act, which, though it be in its kind complete from the 
first, yet is still in doing, till the final justification in the judg- 
ment day. That the justified may pray for the continuance of their 
justification, and that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of 
continual use, and not to be laid by, as if the work was done.'* 
ff^esley^s TVorks, vol. 22, page IT'S. 

The conclusions I would draw from what has been said, and 
which I hope to defend in the sequel, are these: 

1. That Christ never came under any obligation to sufi'er, hut 
that of benevolence, pledged by way of promise. 

2. That God in Christ never came under any other obligation 
to any sinner of Adam's race. ^ ; 

3. That no sinner has any more inherent rigfci^to demand par- 
don from God, than he had to deqiand the death of Christ, for hi§ 
redemption. 

4. That Christ died to make it just for sinners to be forgiven, 
and finally saved, on condition of repentance, faith and gospel 
obedience. 

5. That even upon the performance of those conditions, Christ's 
death has not bound God, in any other sense than as it has been 



PLAN OF SALVATION. tDt 

given as a seal of his gracioas promise, engagement or covenant ' 

with his creatures. - ^ '/ ^ 

We have been told, on the contrary, that Christ has done and ^^^^^^^J^c^ 
suftered all that sinners were bound lo do or to suffer: that he •;;^. \^j ^ 
obey€d the whole law and suffered the whole penalty, in their ' 
stead; and that his ; bedienee and sufferings are so made over, or 
transfered to the sinner, by some mysterious imputation, that 
God really views him as having done all the law required, and 
as having suffered the whole penalty it demanded. This system 
is clogged with the following consequences: - ' > *> »'*^t ^cv 

First: it charges God with being an unjust extortioner: for if an ' ^^ 

obedience has been rendered to the law, perfectly equal to its de- 
mand, all penalties are necessarily precluded; unless we say a 
law perfectly obeyed demands a penalty. For what does it de- ^^^^^, 
nand a penalty? Not for disobedience, because it has been per- ,, l^vv^.- 
fectly obeyed: the penalty then must be for obedience or for no- 
thing at all. If the sinner, by imputation, be really clothed with 
a perfect righteousness, exactly such as the law demands, it 
would be foi*ever unjust for any penalty to be inflicted either on 
him or his surety. 

Secondly: clothed in this perfect righteousness, he appeals to 
inflexible justice as the ground of his justification; he looks up to 
the law for protection, having fulfilled every precept in his surety; 
he justly demands an exemption from the curse, and stands in no 
more need of pardon than the brightest angel there is in heaven. ^^ 

Thirdly: if God demanded that the whole penalty should be ac- r- , 
taally inflicted before any sinner should escape, he certainly ra- 
iB4»lved that sin should never be forgiven; for if we say an infliction 
of the whole penalty is no proof that the sin was *ot pardoned, it 
may be true that the sins of all that are in hell have been forgi- 
ven, seeing their suff*ering the penalty is no proof to the contrary. , 
If crimes forgiven, and those which are not, must be equally pun*/; 
ished, it is plain to common sense that forgivene«s is a mere name 
which signifies just nothing. 

Fourthly: let our objectors admit, for the sake of argument, 
that the death of Christ did not discharge the penalty, but only 
accomplished that which was necessary to make the grant of par- 
don accord with the genecal welfare: would it be just for God to 
grant pardon in this way, or not? If it would, then there was no 
necessity in justice for Christ to discharge the penalty; if it w ould 
not, then we say God has no authority to forgive offenders, even 
"^hen it can be done in perfect consifiteney with good government. 



c*/(X^ 



192 AN ESSAY ON THE 

and with the security of the public welfare. Consequently, that h'e 
has less authority than human rulers, who we know have the pre» 
rogative to grant pardon to those who have been legally condemn- 
ed when it can be done without jeopardising the general welfare 
of society. 

Fifthly: if we say God has authority to grant pardon, when the 
general good is secured, but that he will not do it, until the whole 
penalty be endured, these consequences will inevitably follow: 1^ 
That God has no Mercy in his nature. 2. That in demanding pun*" 
ishment when the public welfare does not require it, he has no re- 
gard to the rights or happiness of others as the reason of this de- 
mand, and of course that he has no regard to the principle of jus- 
tice or benevolence. 3. That this demand arises solely from a sel- 
fish principle, that is, a principle which has no object in view but 
its own private gratification. 4. That this private principle or 
passion is gratified with another's misery, seeing that misery could 
be abolished without injuring any creature in existence. And 
what is the difference between this principle, and the most con- 
firmed and unrelenting malice? "can you split this hair? I doubt, 
I cannot." 

Another scheme of redemption is, that Christ came merely to 
display the love of God to man, and reconcile man to his heavenly 
Father: that God never actually punishes sinners, because there 
is no wrath in his nature: but that sin, of its own nature; makes 
us miserable; and nothing obstructs our salvation but our own op^ 
position to God and to holiness: and of course Christ did nothing 
to satisfy any demand of God, but merely to reconcile the sinner 
and bring him back to his allegiance.?^See a short treatise on the 
atonement, by Mr. Stone. 

We cannot receive this doctrine for several reasons, 

1, Because it contradicts the scriptures which every where de- 
clare that God will ej^ecute just judgment upon the wicked, and 
that the end of Christ's coming was, "that the world through him 
might be saved," which surely implies that without him the world 
could not be saved. 

2, This doctrine, like the other, contradicts divine justice: for 
if God has no wrath against sin, or no justice to punish it, which 
is the stj,me thing, it m»st be because justice is not an attribute of 
his nature. Sinners deserve punishment, or they do not; if they de- 
serve it, then it is just for it to be inflicted on them, and therefore 
to say it is contrary to the nature of God to inflict punishments, i^ 
to say it is contrary to his nature to execute justice upon unrelenti 



PLAN OF SALVATION. IW 

ing offenders: if, on the contrary, they do not deserve it, then it fol- "^ ^- - f-i 
lows that there is no demerit or ill-desert in transsrression. And 'f^^'' 
if misery has bo just relation to moral evil (as it cannot have if evil (^_^;^ r^-L 
does not justly deserve it) we should be constrained to say it is as '^"r^/, 

righteous a thing to punish men for doing good as for doing evil» -^ 

Thus the dictates of reason and conscience would be contradicted, 
all moral distinctions confounded, no difference left betw een right , 
and wrong, and we should find ourselves let looso into thewide'^ ' 
fields of atheism. -^ i<;i -"^ ".. 

3. It also destroys the scripture doctrine of forgiveness: for iC ^^;} ^ / 
sinners deserve no punishment from God, or stand exposed tone/A^^.^ ^^ 
penalty, there is no sentence to be remitted, and of course a par- .^ 

don w ould be a mere sham that could afford them no more securi- , , ; ,y 
ty than they possess without it. Their actions, in a moral view, t*/ .,- 
must deserve punishment, be entitled to reward, or be entirely in- ** ^^ 
different; and if they deserve no punishment, to talk of forgiving 
them would be a ridiculous pretence of granting pardon to those 
actions which were either rewardable or totally indifferent in their 
nature. 

If there be no ill-desert in disobedience, we are not bound either ^ - 
to obey our Maker, or to be just to our fellow creatures; for th* 
sole reason sinners deserve punishment, if they do deserve it, is, 
that they injure others and act in defiance of moral obligation. ^m^»^ q^ 
And if we be not morally obliged to obey our Maker, he has no i- *,>^ 
right to demand our obedience, and therefore, all his demands ^""^"^"^^^^ 
upon us would be unjust, because it were demanding of us that to ^'' ^/^ 
which he has no right. It follows that our obligation to obey, and '''" ' '- 
God's right to punish for disobedience must stand or fall together, 
and if we deny them, we cut down at one stroke, all religion and , "" ; *• 
morality. '^''^"^ ^V 

We must therefore renounce these two systems, which would' " 
make the pardon of sinners impossible or unnecessary; we must 
reject the notion that Christ died to raise the sinner above the 
want of pardon, by discharging all claims against him, as well a^s 
this latter one w hich teaches that the laws of God have no penal 
sanctions; and we must maintain with the apostle that "we have 
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, accorr 
ding to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1. 7. 



iMf AN ESSAY ON THE 



SECTION II. 

The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in their relation 
to each other* 

Dr. Reid must be considered as standing among the most dili- 
gent and candid inquirers after truth: and he had as clear con- 
ceptions of intellectual and moral subjects, perhaps, as any man 
that evftr lived. His account of justice is so clear, and so impor- 
tant, that I will give it in his own words, and notiee the conclu- 
sions it will afford us. 

«To sum up what has been said on this point," says he, ''a/a- 
vour, an act of justice, and an injury are so related to one another, 
that he who conceives one must conceive the other too. They lie, 
as it were, in one line, and resemble the relations of greater, less, 
and equal. If one understands what is meant by one line being 
greater or less than another, he can be at no loss to understand 
what is meant by its being equal to the other: for, if it be neither 
greater nor less, it must be equal. 

"In like manner, of those actions by which we profit or hurt 
other men, a favour is more than justice, an injury is kss; and 
that which is neither a favour nor an injury is &just action^ 

This statement is very clear, and must recommend itself to eve- 
ry man's conscience in the sight of God. 

But when we illustrate moral principles by the relation of great- 
er, less, and oqual, it is necessary to observe that happiness is al- 
ways their object A favour is more than justice: that is, when you 
do a favour you give a person more happiness, or more of the 
means which are essential to it, than he has a right to demand of 
you. "An injury is less:" that is, you injure a person by taking or 
withholding from him a part of his good things, whereby you 
make his happiness, or the means of it, less than his right of de^ 
tiand. 

Thus, injustice always tends to enlarge misery, and benevolence 
to enlarge happiness; while justice, occupying a middle ground, 
forbids the introduction of misery, and demands the maintenance 
of happiness in exact proportion to every one's right, without ei- 
ther forbiding or demanding an enlargement of it, above that 
standard. Injustice is the only thing that justice ever can forbid, 
because it is the only thing that ever sinks below her demand: 
she has nothing to forbid or to enjoin upon benevolence, becatise 



FLAN OF SALVATION. lft« 

tb^egsential nature of it is, not only to secure her full demand, but 
to rise above it, and bestow more happiness than justice had arighl 
to claim. 

But how, it may be asked, can justice relinquish its demand in 
behalf of mercy, in the pardon of a criminal? Answer, the de- 
mand of justice is, that the rights of the innocent shall be secured; 
benevolence will never grant pardon in any other way but that 
which secures them; and therefore justice never relinquishes her 
demand. 

The office of justice is to defend the public welfare, which this 
attribute alone can only da by punishing the guilty; but benevo- 
lence interposes, and pledges herself, not only to secure the public 
welfare, but also to extend the means of happiness to the guilty. 
This is doing more than justice alone could do, whereas injustice 
consists in doing less: consequently the demand of justice is not 
relinquished, but is completely satisfied, seeing all the happiness 
is secured which was demanded, and even more than was demand- 
ed. 

As the object of justice is to defend happiness, it can never be 
dissatisfied with benevolence for enlarging it, nor with the means 
that are necessary to accomplish the end. 

If the innocent voluntarily suffer a temporary evil, to secure an 
eternal good to others, this can never be unjust; otherwise we say 
the innocent have no right to be benevolent, except in those cases 
in which it will cost them nothing. 

Justice and injustice are contradictory to each other: the former 
tending to maintain happiness, and the latter to destroy it: tha 
former including a regard to the general welfare, and the latter a 
disregard of it. This will surely be granted by every man in the 
world. 

Now as justice and injustice are contradictory to each other, 
benevolence must of necessity agree with one or the other of them? 
if with the latter, it is an essential principle of wickedness; and if 
with the former, it is as impossible for justice and mercy to contra- 
dict each other as it is for righteousness^nd wickedness to be the 
same thing. 

He who loves the principle of justice, delights to see all crear 
tiires enjoy the full degree of happiness, which God has given 
them a right to claim: he who loves the principle of benevolence, 
delights to see them enjoy their full right of demand, and if they 
need it, something more: these persons both agree to delight in 
general happiness, asd consequently they agree in their opposi- 



196 AN ESSAY ON THE. 



tion to that injustice, which if not prevented, would fill the uni- 
verse with misery. 

From what has been said we may deduce the following plaiH 
and interesting conchjsions. 

There is no possible way for one person to violate justice, but 
hy injuring another; that is, by doing less for him than he has a 
right to claim. Consequently an act of the deity, or of any other 
being, which does not infringe upon another's right of demand, is 
in perfect harmony with the purest dictates of everlasting right- 
eousness. 

5. An act of benevolence, being no injury, but the contrary, 
stands at the utmost distance from injustice of any thing that can 
possibly be imagined. There is as absolute an opposition between 
them, as there is between happiness and misery — light and dark- 
ness-— or any other opposites m nature. To deny this, is to say 
positively that God never exercised kindness to any living crea- 
ture, or that, whenever he did so, he was guilty of injustice. For at 
the moment he bestowed a favour, he had a right to withhold it^ 
otherwise it was no favour at all; but if he had a right to withhold 
it, then it was just for him to do so: consequently goodness consists 
in giving up a right which justice allows us to retain. Injustice, 
on the contrary, consists in withholding a right from another, which 
justice demands us to render, and does not allow us to retain. Any 
doctrine therefore, which obviously jumbles perfect goodness and 
injustice together, as though they were the same thing, is most ri- 
diculous and senseless confusion. 

3. As goodness cannot violate justice, when God graciously and 
freely forgives a sinner, justice is as perfectly satisfied as it would 
be with the sinner's damnation: because in this case the right of no 
being is withheld from him, but the loving Parent of all mankind 
exercises the optional right of goodness, which can dissatisfy no 
principle but that of unrelenting barbarity and malevolence. 

4. The only case in which the communication of happiness, or 
the diminution of misery, can be unjust, is that of one person con- 
fering a particular benefit on another, not from the principle of be- 
nevolence, but from that of partiality: I mean, when the benefit or 
privilege allowed to one will tend to the injury of others. 

We will suppose a number of murderers are taken up within 
this commonwealth, and cast into prison. They all deserve to die, 
and if they were immediately pardoned and set at liberty, justice 
would not be satisfied. Why? Because the commonwealth would 
be endangered; the citizens would be exposed to their unrestrained 



JWLAN of salvation. 197 

nialeyoleiice; their rebellion would be encouraged; the governor 
would be suspected of a deficiency in moral principle; his adminis- 
tration would be brought into contempt; disaffection would be per- 
mitted to spread abroad with impunity; anarchy and wretchedness 
would advance with rapid strides, and the peace of the common- 
wealth would stand in jeopardy every hour. In this case it could 
not accord with good government, nor consequently with justice j 
for a pardon to be granted; because it would interfere with the 
rights of others, and the governor, in setting the prisoners at li- 
berty, would not act upon the principle of goodness, which always 
regards the general welfare; but upon that oi' partiality, which in- 
variably results from some private and selfish passion. 

On what condition will justice be satisfied, and allow the pri* 
soners to be pardoned and set at liberty? Will it never be satis- 
fied till the prisoners be authorised, by Some means or other, td 
demand their liberty, and the governor be bound to render it as 
their right.^ If so, justice forbids the exercise of any clemency, and 
enjoins on the governor to hold the prisoners while he is bound to 
do it, and to set them at liberty only because he is equally bound, 
and cannot refuse it without violating their right of demand. If 
this be our opinion, we ought, as honest men, to speak out, and tell 
the world we believe the eternal demand of justice is, that good- 
ness, mercy and compassion should be excluded from God, angels 
and men. 

The criminals have forfeited their right to life and liberty, and 
^he Fight to execute the sentence upon them is now in the govern- 
or, who, for the security of the public welfare, is bound to execute 
them, unless it can be secured in some other way. 

Now, supposing the governor to be possessed of power, wisdom 
and goodness enough, to devise and execute some plan through 
which the pardon of criminals may be made to accord with the 
general welfare; who will say that he thereby abolishes the sin* 
ner's demerit, and gives him a right in justice to demand the pri- 
vileges of an upright citizen, which his crimes had entirely for- 
feited.^ Who will say that the criminal's right would be violat- 
ed by punishing him according to his crimes? It is evident he is 
as void of any right to be exempt from punishment as he was be- 
fore, and can only look for deliverance in a way oY mercy. 

But still the governor may act unjustly in his relation to the 
commonwealth, by refusing to grant pardon, when the proper terms 
are complied with: for, as the plan was devised and executed in 
t^e presence of all, with the de4:lared intention of shewing mercg 



498 AN ESSAY ON THE 

to offenders, and thus extending happiness as far as it eould be ex- 
tended, consistently with the principles of good government; the 
members of the community would have a right te expect an ad- 
ministration according to the benevolent intention that had been 
thus openly proclaimed. 

A subsequent departure from it would prove a want of veracity, 
and a manifest deception in the governor. It would afford a just 
ground for suspicion, that the original plan of redeeming those 
criminals did not result from benevolence, as was pretended, but 
from some private passion, or secret partiality, subversive of every 
just and equitable government; why else are criminals rejected, 
who are fully disposed to avail themselves of the plan of mercy, 
and to comply with its conditions? 

In this way the supposed ruler would indeed be under obliga- 
tion, but not from the criminal's right of exemption, or from any 
thing else but the voluntary pledges of his own truth and benevo- 
lence. 

By applying this to our Maker's government of the moral 
world, we may discover the harmony of justice and mercy in the 
salvation of a sinner through Jesus Christ. The Redeemer makes 
it accord with the general welfare for sin to be forgiven, by a full 
demonstration of the divine character in the method of forgive- 
ness; but God is not thereby brought under obligation to sin- 
ners, farther than he has graciously condescended to bind himself 
by promise. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- 
give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 

5. From the preceding view of the subject, it appears that be- 
nevolence is the only thing that merits reward or gratitude, and 
injustice is the only source of demerit and punishment: so far are 
they from being one and the same thing! 

Every one knows that a man merits nothing, and deserves no 
thanks, merely for paying his debts; because he was bound in jus- 
tice to do it, and did nothing more than his duly. But when 
a kind friend, on whom we have no demand, bestows a favour 
upon us, we at once perceive this to be a praise-worthy action, 
and feel ourselves bound under obligations of gratitude. Had 
he withheld the favour, he would have done us no wrong, 
and we should have had no right to blame or censure him for it: 
because, as the benefactor has a right to withhold his favours, 
there could be no demerit in his retaining that which was entirely 
his own. 

For the same reason, there is no proper merit in the mere dis- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 199 

charge of justice, because it consists in rendering that which is 
another^ s right, and which we have not the option to retain. If 
we refuse to render it, in violation of another's right; this is the 
principle and conduct which deserves reproach and misery, be- 
cause it inflicts misery on others which they do not deserve. It 
operates in contradiction to justice, by infringing upon the rights 
of the innocent; and in opposition to goodness, by obstructing that 
flow of happiness which it would communicate: yea, it sets at de- 
fiance every just and amiable principle of morality, and would, if 
not prevented, despoil angels of their felicity, and involve the 
whole creation in misery and ruin. 

Hence it appears that injustice tends to the diminution of hap- 
piness, and to the increase of misery; whilst benevolence, pursu- 
ing a contrary direction, is ever delighted to assuage the grief of 
the miserable, and, if possible, to banish all wretchedness from 
the creation. The former always implies an intention to injure us, 
and the latter an intention to do us good: for if we be accidentally 
hurt by any one, or accidentally benefitted, the one is no proof of 
injustice, nor the other of goodness; because a voluntary intention 
is essential to all the responsible actions of a moral agent; and 
where no good or bad intention exists, there is no ground for 
either praise or blame; otherwise we might blame or praise the 
actions of an idiot, or even the operations of the wind. If then 
those two principles are as opposite to each other as heaven is 
from hell — opposite in the intention of the agent, in his actions, 
and in the final effect or tendency of them, how absurd must that 
system be which supposes that every departure from the inflexible 
standard is alike improper, and that goodness itself is unjust! 

Benevolence is the source of all happiness in the creation. If 
the offiee of justice were to enjoin on all beings to do whatever 
they have a right to do, God would have been bound in justice 
not to create the universe, and diffuse his multiplied favours 
abroad: because he had an undoubted right to withhold them. 
Had he confined himself to this standard, and resolved not to do 
any thing, but as a previous obligation enjoined, it is evident, unless 
some rare genius can demonstrate that we eternally had a right 
to our creation, and to all the blessings which followed it, that 
his actions would have been solely confined to himself, and no liv- 
ing creature would have ever existed. But if the display of his 
goodness in the creation, was perfectly just, because there were 
no other beings whose rights and privileges could be afteeted by 
it; by a parity of reason it follows, that it is perfectly just for 



^00 AN ESSAY ON THE 

God to deliver guilty sinners from misery, whenever it can be 
done, without infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. 
Presuming that any attempt to produce additional arguments in 
defence of this point, would insult the reader's understanding, 
and intrude upon his patience, I subniit these to his candid re- 
flectionso- 



SECTION III. 

tin objection answered. 

It may be alleged, that, if benevolence imply a double right, 
to give or to withhold, then all men have a right to live without 
ever bestowing a favour: and also, when they do an act of kindness 
according to the preceding statements, there is real merit in their 
works; a doctrine totally opposite to the whole spirit and letter of 
the gospel. 

In answer to this we may observe: 

1. That no action among men is benevolent as it relates to God, 
but only in relation to our fellow-creatures. They have no right 
to demand it, but God has a right to enjoin the performance of it, 
because he is our author, and we are dependant on his goodness 
for our faculties, and for all our ability to exercise them. To him 
such actions are a mere discharge of duty, which cannot be omit- 
ted without ingratitude, and a defiance of moral obligation. No 
actions in the universe are absolutely and independently benevo- 
lent, but those of the Deity himself, who cannot be bound in duty 
to any superior authority. He is not dependant on any other be- 
ing for his povver to do good, and therefore his right of option, to 
give or withhold his favours, is perfectly free from the contronl of 
any other authority. But as man's power, and liberty, and very 
existence, is dependant on an higher arm, so is his right of option: 
|ie is therefore bound in duty to the creator, even in the communi- 
cation of his favours, though his fellow-creatures have no inherent 
right of demand, 

2. Hence it appears that men are not at liberty to live without 
benevolence, but are bound by divine authority to exercise their 
ability in acts of kindness, as well s^s in those of justice. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. SOI 

And thongh their benevolent actions have a degree of merit in 
them, and are deserving gratitude, as they relate to their fellow 
men, yet it is very evident they merit nothing from God, because 
he has authority to command us to do good to our brethren, and 
after we have done all that he has commanded, we are unprofitable 
servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. 

Yet there is more moral worth in those actions in the estima- 
tion of God himself, than in acts of mere justice between man 
and man. They are the nearest imitation of his essential na- 
ture of any thing that can be found in a creature. Benevolence 
is the highest moral attribute of the Deity, to which all the rest 
are perpetually subservient: he is therefore pleased with the exer- 
cise of it, above all things in the creation. Mr. Wesley very 
jightly observes, " The scripture doth not say that God is justice, 
or that he is truth, though he is just and true in all his ways; but 
it doth say, God is love. He is love in the abstract, and there is no 
end of his goodness. This is the attribute in which he peculiar- 
ly delights, in which he glories above all the rest." 

It is therefore evident, from the nature of God, that such ac- 
tions are pleasing to him in a high degree, and though in their 
relation to him they are not properly meritorious, yet they are 
rewardable, and God will manifest his approbation of them 
through eternity. 

The Lord Jesus in describing the day of judgment, mentions 
acts of benevolence alone, as being of great price in the sight of 
God, and as being the conditional works of our final justification: 
<*Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, come ye bless- 
ed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me 
meat: I wat thirsty, and ye gave me drink: 1 was a stranger, and 
ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited 
me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Inasmuch as ye have 
done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it 
unto me." Matt. xxv. 34, &,c. 

It is very observable, that all the works he mentions are works 
of charity or mercy, as they relate to man, though in their relation 
to God, they are a mere discharge of duty; because it is impossi- 
ble for a creature to do more than his duty to his creator. These 
works can only flow from the love of God, for there is no moral 
virtue in acts of kindness, which result only from animal affec- 
tion, otherwise there is virtue even in the actions of brute beasts. 
Our works^of charity must result from t^ love of goodness^ which is 



20i AN ESSAY ON THE 

the same thing with the love of God; for God is love; and we love, 
him because he is good, or which is the same thing, because hz 
first loved ms. 

Nor let any conclude, that since charity is of the greatest value, 
and will stand so high in the day of judgment, men may therefore 
he discouraged in performing acts of justice, and he tempted to 
neglect them under pretence of preserving more time for the per- 
formance of greater works: for it is impossible for an unjust man 
to be benevolent. He may, indeed, perform acts of kindness from 
some selfish principle, or animal aft'ection, but this is not moral 
goodness, because he does not act from a regard to the principle. 
Let this principle perpetually govern his soul, and he will not 
neglect the demands of justice, or bestow favours on one to the in- 
jury of others, which is not goodness, hut partiality. If I bestow 
that upon objects of charity, which ought to discharge my just 
dehts, and thereby defraud my creditors of their right, there 
is surely no moral worth in such an action, but it results from 
some whimsical delusion, or partial fondness, irreconcilable 
with every righteous principle. A man must therefore come up 
to the standard of justice, before he can possibly be benevolent; 
because " a favour is more than justice, injustice is less;" and to 
suppose a man can be benevolent in the neglect of justice, or in 
doing less than it requires, is the very absurdity that has been re* 
futed by all the foregoing arguments. 

Some depend for salvation upon an imaginary jsicity, which pre- 
tends to worship God, by the exercise of injustice and cruelty to 
men; others, through self-love and partiality bestow favours on 
some, while they defraud others, and call this benevolence; a 
third class pay little regard either to piety or benevolence, and 
value themselves much upon their honesty; but when the saviour 
enumerated our rewardable actions, on which we should be invit- 
ed to our father's kingdom in the day of judgment, he did not men- 
tion common honesty as one of them: and though none but an ho- 
nest man can do the works he mentions, yet according to his ac- 
count of the matter, no man will be rewarded in heaven merely 
for paying his debts, and discharging the common demands of jus- 
tice. 

If we act from a love of goodness, we love God, who is the foun- 
tain of it: this includes the whole exercise of true piety. We also 
act from a regard to the general happiness, and this includes the 
very principle, and leads to the perfect exercise of true charity. 
The office of justice is to defend that happiness which goodness 



PLAN OF SALVATION 203 

commuuicates, and therefore the love of goodness essentially in- 
cludes the love of justice. Thus it is plain, that he who sincerely 
loves God, and all mankind; he who hates partiality and injuS' 
tice, and proves it by corresponding actions, is the very man that 
possesses moral worth, and will be rewarded in heaven with ever- 
lasting happiness. 



SECTION IV. 

The fitness, importance and necessity of redemption. 

Our opponents will be apt to insist, that the doctrine we defend 
renders the death of Christ unnecessary and contemptible: for if 
God can freely forgive sins, before justice satisfies itself by inflict- 
ing the punishment due to the criminal, they would have us con- 
elude that Christ died in vain, and evinced the folly of heaven in 
sending us a saviour, when we could have been justly pardoned 
and saved without his interposition. 

But we perfectly agree with them that sinners could not be saved 
consistently with the divine attributes, but through a mediator; 
and also that our saviour did actually satisfy justice in our be- 
half. The dift'erence between us consists in these two particulars: 

1. We believe Christ died to make it just for God to pardon 
penitent sinners; whilst their system supposes he died to give an 
absolute right to salvation, independent of their penitence, and 
without being beholden to God for mercy or forgiveness. 

2. They think the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God, 
considered as a private principle that demanded full vengeance 
for every crime; we on the contrary believe he satisfied the justice 
of God, only in his public character, as moral governor of the uni- 
verse; or in other words, that Christ secured the ends of good gov- 
ernment in the pardon of penitents, as effectually as it would have 
been done by their damnation. 

Do our views of the subject render redemption unnecessary? Do 
they in any degree diminish the glory of it, as represented in the 
scriptures? I think not. And I moreover think the charge falls just- 
ly^ upon the opposite system, and hope to make it appear by the 
following arguments. 



204 AN ESSAY ON THE 

1. If they grant the whole punishment was not endured, which 
was due to sin, they concede the very thing for which we contend; 
Bamely, that justice can be satisfied without an infliction of the 
whole penalty. But if, on the contrary, ihey declare the whole 
must of necessity be endured before justice can be satisfied, it fol- 
lows, that, whatever effect redemption might produce, it could not 
diminish the misery which was incurred by moral evil. And if the 
same quantum of misery take place, upon the plan of redemption, 
that would have existed without it, there is no other principle 
from which Ave can conclude redemption necessary, but the un- 
scriptural hypothesis, "that penal sufferings must never be dimi- 
nished, but must be transfered from the guilty to the innocent. If 
redemption did nothing towards the diminution of misery, what 
goodness was displayed in it, unless we say benevolence consists 
in nothing else than the transfer of punishment from the guilty to 
the innocent.^ 

2. Our opponents themselves explain the penalty of God's bro- 
ken law to be "death, temporal, spiritual and eternal." Now God 
can, consistently with his attributes, diminish this penalty, and 
inflict but a part of it, or he cannot; if he can, then it >vas not ne- 
cessary for the whole to be endured by the Redeemer; if he cannot, 
it plainly follows that all mankind must yet be damned, unless it 
can be proved "that the Lord Jesus suffered death temporal, spi- 
ritual and eternal." The word of God assures us that he, having 
once suffered for sins, now suffereth again no more, but is exalted 
above all principality and power, on the right hand of the Majesty 
on high. I never yet heard any one profess to believe, much less 
attempt to prove, that Jesus Christ suffered everlasting punish- 
ment even for the elect themselves; but this is (confessedly) the 
punishment which the law required of them, and which consti- 
tutes the penalty that must be inflicted to the very last mite, before 
justice can be satisfied: therefore the elect must yet suffer death 
eternal, and redemption has accomplished '• a solemn nothing." 

3. I would be glad to know whether punishment be the only 
thing that can satisfy justice, in its relation to a sinner; or whe- 
ther benevolence can render any satisfaction, and thus diminish 
the extent of misery? If benevolence can do this, I conclude, if the 
death of Christ satisfied justice, in its relation to the government, 
and God's benevolence satisfied it in its relation to his individual 
right of punishing, a complete and entire satisfaction is thus ren- 
dered, and yet we are all dependent on the divine clemency for 
justification, and have no legal demand upon our Creator. 



PLAIV OP SALVATIOX, 203 

If It be said, on the contrary, that nothing can satisfy this at- 
tribute but punishment, I would ask again, whether it demand 
that the guilty should suffer, or whether it be indifferent to justice 
who is punished, provided the whole penalty be endured.^ If the 
latter, it follows that all the devils might now be taken out of hell, 
and justice would be satisfied, provided as many holy angels were 
put in their place, seeing it is a matter of inditlerence who endures 
the misery. But if, on the! contrary, nothing can give satisfaction 
but the punishment of the guilty, the sufferings of an innocent Sa- 
viour would be of no avail, and the redemption of mankind would 
be absolutely unrighteous, and therefore impossible. 

4. If it be granted that goodness can satisfy justice, in its rela- 
tion to God's individual right, all objections against our system 
are gone at once: for if Christ died only to make it just for sinners, 
on certain conditions, to be forgiven, and left the sentence still in 
force against them, till it should be blotted out by the divine com- 
passion, it cannot hence be concluded that justice is only satisfied 
in part; because the act of goodness in the grant of pardon, renders 
the satisfaction complete and entire. 

But if we deny the merit of goodness, and maintain that mere 
punishment is the only thing w hich is effectual to a sinner's sal- 
vation, it would follow, that Christ must necessarily suffer as much 
real torment as all his ransomed creatures ever deserved, befor* 
they could be redeemed or delivered from the sentence. This is re-* 
presenting him to suffer as a criminal, which, to say nothing of the 
injustice of it, supposes the suffering of sinners, and those of their 
Saviour, are exactly equal in merit; seeing all merit, availa-* 
ble for the guilty, is supposed to consist only in the degree of mi- 
sery endured. 

What was it that rendered the death of Jesus peculiarly meri- 
torious? Was it necessary for sin to be imputed to him, and for him 
to die a real criminal? just the contrary: he suffered, being inno- 
cent, for the sake of sparing the guilty, and his whole merit, as a 
Saviour, consisted in that voluntary goodness which influenced 
him "that was rich in glory to become poor, that we through his 
poverty might be rich." 

I presume all men will acknowledge that there is no merit ia 
the sufferings of the damned, because they, as criminals, deserve 
it, and suffer the whole as a penalty of justice. But there wag 
great merit in the sufferings of our Saviour; therefore he did not 
suffer as a criminal, by becoming guilty in their place, but endured 
the whole as a burden assumed by voluntary kindness, and this con- 
stitutes the meritorious efHcacy of his death, for our salvatioHit 
Dd 



306 AN ESSAY ON THE 

There would have been no peculiar merit in the gufferings of 
Christ, had he been bound in justice to endure the whole; no dig 
nity of person would have increased their merit, because the mere 
payment of a debt or the discharge of a just obligation, is no more 
meritorious in a prince or other ruler, than a like action in the 
meanest subject of his dominions. It is true Christ's peculiar me- 
rit consisted in the dignity of his person; because he being God 
oVer all blessed forever, was far above the law given to creatures, 
and was under no obligation to obey or to suffrer. Had he been thus 
bound to suffer, his death would have been of no avail, unless we 
suppose there is great merit in a person's suffering what justice 
requires of him, which were to attribute merit to the sufferings of 
devils: therefore the benevolence of the Lord Jesus, was the foun- 
tain of his merit, and was the only thing which rendered his death 
effectual to our redemption and salvation. 

Now if it be granted, (I.) that our Saviour's goodness was the 
source of his merit, and (3.) that merit is the thing that satisfies 
justice in behalf of sinners, it will follow that Christ was not, by 
imputation, constituted a criminal, or else that there was no merit 
in his death: for there is no benevolence, and therefore no merit, 
in a criminal suffering what ju stice requires of him. 

Dr. Crisp, had the boldness to declare, on the contrary, that "God 
makes Christ as very a sinner as the creature himself was." 
Again, as quoted by Dr. Williams, page 270: "Nor are we so com- 
pletely sinful, but Christ, being made sin, was as completely sin- 
ful as we." — And it is well known, that Luther, in one of his un- 
guarded moments, called Christ* the greatest sinner in the world. 
See Fletcher's Checks, vol. 2. page 229, 

* "And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that 
Christ sliould become the greatest Transgressor, Murderer, Adul- 
terer, Thief, Rebel and Blasphemer, that ever was or could be 
in the world. For he being made a sacrifice for the sins of the 
Mhole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins, is 
not now the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary: but a sinner 
which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer, 
an oppressor and persecutor; of Peter, which denied Christ; of 
David, which was an adulterer, a murderer, and caused the gentiles 
to blaspheme the name of the Lord. When the law therefore, found 
him among thieves, it condemned and killed him as a thief. — If it* | 
be not absurd to confess and believe, that Christ was crucified be-, i 
tween two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that he was 
accursed, and of all sinners the greatest." 

Luther's commentary on St Paul's epistle to the Galations, LoH' 
don edition, 1774: page 203. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 207 

As the counter part of this, we have been taught to believe that 
the merits and righteousness of Christ are really transferred, or 
made over to us by imputation, just as he was made guilty by ha- 
ving our sins imputed to him. 

"To deny, therefore, that God imputes righteousness to an elect, 
while he is full of unrighteousness; or to suppose that he imputes 
sin to an apostate, who is sold under sin, is but a decent way of de« 
Hying the imputation of our personal sins to Christ, and the vica- 
rious satisfaction which he made on the cross. 

'vTo detect the fallacy of this argument," says Mr. Fletcher, 
»< we need only observe, (1.) that God never accounted Christ com- 
pletely guilty. Such expressions as these, He made him sin for us: 
He laid on him the iniquities of us all, &c. are only Hebrew idioms, 
which signify, that God appointed Christ a sacrifice for sin; and 
that the chastisement of our forfeited peace was upon him; which 
no more implies, that God put on his back, by an absolute imputa- 
tion, a robe of unrighteousness, woven with all the sins of the elect 
to make him completely guilty, than St. Luke, when he informs us, 
that the Virgin Mary oft'ered two young pigeons for her purifica- 
tion, supposes her ceremonial uncleanness was, somehow, woven 
into a couple of little garments, and put upon the back of two pi- 
geons, which by that means, were made completely unclean. 

'Gallio gets drunk, and as he reels home from his midnight re- 
vels, he breaks thirty-six lamps in the streets, and sends out vol- 
lies of curses to the number of two hundred. He is brought before 
you,* and you insist on his going to the house of correction, or pay- 
ing so much money to buy three dozen of lamps, besides the usual 
fine for his profane language. As he is not worth a groat, his sober 
brother Mitio kindly ofters to lay down the sum for him. You ac- 
cept of the vicarious satisfaction, and binding the rake to his 
good behaviour, you release him at his brother's request. Now 
sir, would you be reasonable, if you reckoned Mitio completely 
guilty of getting drunk, swearing two hundred oaths, and break- 
ing thirty six lamps? 

*And will you defend a doctrine which charges God with a mis- 
take ten thousand times more glaring, than that you would be 
guilty of, if you really reckoned Metio an abandoned rake, and 
Gallio a man of an exemplary conduct? Will you indeed recom- 
mend still as gospel, an opinion which supposes, that the God of 
everlasting, unchangeable love, once loathed and abhorred his be- 

* Mr. Hill being a magistrate, he is here addressed as sueh. 



208 AN ESSAY ON THE 

loved Sons and that the God of invariable truth could once say to 
the holy Jesus, 'Thou art all foul, O thou defiled object of niy ha- 
tred, there is no purity in theej' while he addresses a bloody adul-^ 
terer with, 'Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no 
spot in thee?" Fletcher's Works, vol. 2, page 163, 164. 

To Mr Fletcher's just and ingenious illustration, we may add 
the following plain consequences of the Antinomian system of im- 
putation, 

1. If our sins were actually imputed to Christ, to make hira 
completely guilty; we are delivered from the curse, not through 
the merit of Christ's death, but by virtue of God's act of imputa« 
tion, whereby we are constituted innocent; and Christ, being as ve- 
ry a sinner as the creature himself was, is bound injustice to suf- 
fer the whole penalty for Irimself. 

% It was just for the Lord of glory to be charged with our 
eriraes, and the guilt ;f them absolutely transferred from us to him, 
or it was not: if it was not, the doctrine we oppose is false, or God 
is an unjust being; if it was, then he suffered nothing but what in 
justice he deserved, and consequently there was no more merit in 
his death, than there is in the death of any other sinner, 

3. If this mysterious doctrine of imputation be true, we must 
necessarily receive the following jumble of contradictions; that 
Christ was a sinner and yet a meritorious saviour — that he was 
guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that Me are 
guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that God is 
good, but refuses to be gracious— and that he is just in the viola- 
tion of justice. 

4. Lastly, if the merits and righteousness of Christ be actual- 
ly transferred to us by imputation, we are all as completely right- 
eous and meritorious as ever he was, unless our objectors will leap 
into another contradiction, and say his righteousness is imputed 
and not imputed — his merit made over to us and not made over, 
at the same time. This woald not constitute us ransomed sinners, 
hut gracious saviours of the world, possessing the whole right- 
eousness and merit of that sacred character. 

These conclusions are too obvious to be denied, and too ridicu^ 
lous to be admitted, by any unprejudiced, reflecting mind; and I 
hope the lovers of truth will not receive such inconsiderate and 
absurd opinions under the popish cover of "holy mysteries," nor 
be dissuaded from a diligent search and inquiry, through the 
groundless fear that truth will be exposed, and error established, 
|)y a close and candid examination; or, as some would express it, 
\j "carnal reasoniags and metaphysical distinctions." 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 209 

Perhaps our opponents, in reply to the cloctrine of this section, 
will declare they never taught nor believed that Christ suffered 
the entire degree of punishment that was due to sinners; but that 
he rendered that satisfaction to divine justice, which was equiva-^ 
Jent to the whole penalty. We answer; 

1. If our sins were really imputed to Christ, and if nothing hut 
punishment can render satisfaction for them, he must of necessity 
suffer the whole that was required, and nothing less could be re- 
ceived as equivalent; but if there is merit in every act of the re* 
deemer's goodness, with which divine justice is satisfied, then our 
doctrine is true, that benevolence was the source of our saviour's 
merit, which made it just for sinners to have a probation granted 
them; and that his benevolence in the grant of pardon, is also me- 
ritorious, and makes it just for sinners (when renewed) to he ad- 
mitted into heaven. 

2. In what sense was the death of Christ equivalent to the pe- 
nalty? Not in the degree of punishment; and I would fain hope no 
person will say it was so, in the degree of guilt. In merit it was 
more than equivalent; for I presume there is no merit at all in a 
person's suiFering what he deserves, and therefore a sinner's suffer- 
ing what he deserves, is not meritorious. Do they mean that the 
death of Jesus was equivalent to the penalty in the effects produc- 
ed by it, or in the satisfaction it rendered to the divine nature? 
I believe in both these respects it was more than equal to the 
damnation of all sinners: for it not only displayed God's holiness 
and hatred against sin, which their damnation would have done, 
hut procured a day of mercy and salvation for all mankind, and 
opened the way for goodness to diff'use its benign influences even 
to the guilty, which an infliction of the penalty would never have 
accomplished. And the divine nature was certainly better satisfi- 
ed with the death of Christ, than with the condemnation of all re- 
bels, otherwise they would have been condejnned, and the saviour 
would never have come into the world. God was more glorified, or 
his attributes were more extensively displayed, by redeeming sin- 
ners, than by consigning them all to perdition, because his wonder- 
ful goodness, benignity and wisdom, were manifested in the salva- 
tion of sinners, and this was done in perfect concord with his jus- 
tice and impariiality. 

If by equivalent, our opponents mean that Christ's death, though 
not equal in punishment to the requirements of the law, yet gave 
the sinner as absolute a discharge or deliverance from guilt and 
demerit iis he h^d before eiq entered into the world, the conse- 



310 ^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

quence is, that all for whom the redeemer died, are perfectly se- 
cure and innocent in the midst of all their crimes. 

We must maintain that this scheme would prove that his death 
was not equal to an execution of the sentence upon all offenders: 
for, (1.) how is his holiness or hatred against sin displayed, if he es- 
tablishes a plan of redemption, which gives his creatures full li- 
berty to sin without any danger, or possibility in justice, of ever 
being punished for it? Where is his general goodness and impar- 
tiality, if a few are thus absolutely saved, and the rest as uncon- 
ditionally neglected, reprobated and damned? What becomes of 
his wisdom, if he puts the reigns of government out of his hands, 
gives all mankind a sham trial; threatens his elect with hell if 
they repent not, and invites reprobates to partake of the waters 
of life freely, when he cannot punish the former, or reward the 
latter, without being unjust? Where is his justice and equity, if 
his innocent creatures were placed in a state from which they 
might fall and perish forever, and his guilty ones in a state of 
sham trial, in which they are absolutely secure in the midst of all 
their abominations? What is this but manifesting a complacency 
for wickedness, and even rewarding it with that safety and uncon- 
ditional assurance of eternal life, which Adam in paradise, and 
the very angels in heaven were not in possession of? 

And if we say he died for all mankind, and discharged every de- 
mand thatjustice canhave against any of Adam's race, then all must 
have a sham trials and be unconditionally saved, in which case 
gin, in the finally impenitent, will be rewarded, and God's appro- 
bation of it declared; or else, standing in a state of real probation, 
all impenitent sinners must be condemned, and the Almighty 
i^'ould thereby display an act of unrighteousness, by requiring the 
same penalty twice over, or hy executing those against whom juS' 
ticc had no demand. If Christ by his death satisfied every de- 
mand that ever justice had, or now has, against the sons and daugh- 
ters of Adam, we are all absolutely free from all penalties: 
otherwise you say justice has been fully satisfied, and not fully 
satisfied; has received its whole demand against sinners, and not 
received it, at the same time. 

Thus it appears the system we oppose, renders redemption use- 
less, unjust and contradictory: useless, because it teaches that the 
whole penalty must of necessity be endured; but this penalty is 
death eternal, which Christ never suftered, and tkerefore all sin- 
ners are left without hope and without remedy. Unjust, inas- 
much as it presents a false charge of guilt against the innocent 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 211 

redeemer, (by imputation,) that he may suffer according to his de- 
merit. Contradictory f in declaring that all demands of the law 
have been discharged, and yet that they continue in full force: that 
all our guilt has been transferred tb a surety, who has satisfied 
every claim in his own person, and yet that we remain guilty 
children of wrath, who will be everlastingly damned unless we 
repent and obtain forgiveness: finally, that God's law has but one 
penalty against sinners, the whole of which has been actually en- 
dured, and yet thousands shall sufter eternal punishment for the 
very sins that have thus been completely expiated; and we must 
neither call this the same penalty which the redeemer suffered, 
nor any other one; but must receive the whole in jumbled confu- 
sion, without presuming to indulge "the almost magical power 
•f our metaphysical distinctions."* These strange mysteries must 
be believed and defended, it seems, for the honour of Chris- 
tianity, and to support the glory of redemption! I hope, however, 
that a candid survey of the following section will convince the 
judicious reader, that the dignity and importance of our holy re- 
ligion, can be supported upon very different principles. 



SECTION V. 

The same subject 

To understand the scheme of redemption correctly, it is neces' 
ry to trace the economy of providence, and the principles of mo- 
ral government to their eternal fountain. From reason and reve- 
lation we learn something of the moral nature of God: this nature 
is the proper foundation of all just conclusions in divinity, and un- 
less we bring our views of redemption to this criterion, our infer- 
ences are drawn in the dark, and we know not what we say, nor 
whereof we aftirm. We will therefore, as the foundation of our 
superstructure, lay down the following positions, some of 
which will be admitted without hesitation, and the others I trust, 
shall be supported by correct and conclusive evidence. 

1. The Almighty ruler of the heavens and the earth, being 

* See Mf . Shirley's Reply, to Mr. Fletcher's Vindication. 



^^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

glorious in holiness, and perfect in goodness, enjojs tknceasin^ an^ 
infinite felicity. 

2. This complete and perfect happiness is not derived from any 
thing foreign from himself, but) results from the harmony and per- 
fection of all his eternal attributes. 

3. He is perfectly free and voluntary in all his actions, because 
he is omnipotent, and cannot be controulled by any other power 
or authority. To deny his free ageucy, is to ascribe our being 
and happiness to necessity, seeing if God be not a free agent, they 
depended not upon his liberty of option, and could not be other- 
wise than they are. It is to deny that power beloHgeth unto God; 
because a power to do any thing, includes a power to leave it un- 
done, and to affirm a bei?ig has pow er, w ho is destitute of agency, 
is an absolute contradiction. 

4. There is no immoral principle in his na.tnre, and no error or 
mistake can ever enter into his infinite mind; therefore God can- 
not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. It is im- 
possible for God to lie; he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for- 
ever: therefore he never has done, and never will do any thing 
" but what is eternally just, right and kind." 

5. This great and immortal being, from the pure benevolence 
of his nature, was influenced to create various orders of intelligent 
and moral creatures, that they might behold his glory and partici- 
pate in his felicity. 

6. To this end it was necessary for them to possess understand' 
ing, liberty and moral goodness for if the happiness of deity re- 
sults from his own nature, it is evident that his creatures, to par- 
take of the same kind of enjoyment, must possess a degree of the 
game nature, otherwise we say his nature is essential, and at the 
same time not essential, to moral happiness. 

That God did in fact endow his creatures with free agency, is 
evident from their fall: for if they were not free, it is certain that 
they were made w icked, or else w ere driven into sin by some other 
power; if they were made wrong, the fault was in their Maker, 
not in themselves; and if they were forced into sin by the agency 
of another, God only could be the author of it, because there was 
no other power in the universe. Therefore we are reduced to this 
dilemma: either to believe that our creator is essentially wicked, 
or that his creatures were made free, and introduced evil by an 
abuse of their liberty. 

But why was this agency or active power bestowed upon them ? 
We must answer that it was esseutial to the enjoyment of moral 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 2id 

happiness, or that it was not: if it was, this good and perfect gift 
is resolvable into the divine beneficence; if it was not,, then we say 
God bestowed a useless power upon his creatures, wliich could do 
them no good, and which might prove fatal to their tranquillity. If 
we say he gave it in order to ruin them, we charge him with ma- 
levolence, and if we say he gave it for no end, we charge him with 
folly: therefore the only modest and rational conclusion is, that he 
gave it through benevolence, because it was essential to their spi- 
ritual or moral happiness. 

7. To secure and perpetuate the happiness of his children, God 
gave them a law or moral government, founded upon the attributes 
of his own nature. For as His felicity results from the perfections 
of his own nature, the government, to promote theirs, must be es- 
tablished upon the same principles. 

His giving them a moral law is, of itself, an incontestable proof 
of their free agency. For had God intended to regulate all their 
actions by the force of destiny, nothing more would have been ne- 
cessary than to subject them to the mechanical laws of matter, be- 
cause these are entirely sufiicient to accomplish the end. Are not 
the general laws of nature perfectly adequate to the government 
of those parts of God's creation that possess not the power of ac- 
tion in themselves, and can only act as they are acted upon? And 
if God intended that angels and men should be governed by the 
same necessity, would not a moral law b^ both useless and ridicu- 
lous.^ 

The winds, and waves, and all the elements of nature are moved 
by mechanical inflnence: if the actions of men and angels are all 
directed in the same way, they need no other law, and are as inca- 
pable of moral government as a stone or a tree. And what wisdom 
or goodness is there in commanding or warning a creature against 
evil conduct, if he either has no power to do wrong or must fall in- 
to it of necessity.'^ The absurdity of such a law is obvious to com- 
mon sense, and it is truly astonishing that men should be disposed 
to impute such folly to the Almighty. 

But it may be asked, why did not God govern all living creatures 
by the law of instinct, as the brute creation are governed.^ Could 
they not enjoy sufficient happiness by voluntarily following the in- 
stincts of their nature, without any responsibility, and therefore, 
without any danger of losing their felicity? 

They might, it is true, have thus enjoyed the happiness of a 
brute; but not the happiness of a man, and much less that of an an- 
gel. The reason why brutes are not morally accountable is, that 
E e 



2U AN ESSAY ON THE 

they have no conception of right, or of moral obligation: to brittg 
men and angels to this state, their knowledge must be taken from 
them, and they must be brought down to the ignorance of brute 
beasts. 

I presume the happiness of all creatures, that of a beast not ex- 
cepted, depends upon knowledge and liberty. Some, however, ap- 
pear to imagine that beasts, birds and fishes, have no more liber- 
ty or power than a mill-wheel, or any other machine: but I know 
no argument to prove this conjecture, but what would equally 
prove that men have no power. For men have similar instincts, 
appetites and affections, and are under the same necessity of choos- 
ing haj)piness in preference to misery. Man chooses happiness in 
preference to misery, of necessity; and so, I presume, does every 
creature in existence; but the means of enjoyment are innumera- 
ble, and we have the liberty or power to use them at our option. 
The inferior animals have a degree of the same liberty, confined, 
indeed, within narrow limits, from the imperfection of their know- 
ledge, which deprives them of spiritual and moral happiness; but 
although their enjoyments are almost entirely confined to sensation, 
yet they have a free range through the earth, and air, and water; 
and we cannot abridge their power, or obstruct the freedom of 
their choice, without, in the same proportion, diminishing their 
happiness. 

But Avaving the case of beasts for the present, it is sufficient te 
our purpose that all men are conscious of a degree of power over 
their actions, and that their highest happiness arises from know- 
ledge, and is inseparable from a voluntary choice. The exercise of 
virtue, or the enjoyment of moral happiness against our consent 
is impossible; because it implies a state of complete slavery. 

If it be asked, why was not the Mill inclined to choose all the pro- 
per means of happiness, as necessarily as it is inclined to choose 
happiness as its end, in preference to misery; I think the proper 
answer is, that it was impossible for creatures to possess moral 
rectitude, and of consequence, moral happiness, without the liber, 
ty of option, or, which is the same thing, without a degree of pow- 
er, which essentially implies that agency of will that can choose* 
one thing or its contrary; — that can perform an action, or omit 
the performance of it — that can determine, or omit the determi* 
nation. 

If this be true (and that it is so, I hope to prove directly) it 
clearly follows that the reason why God did not hinder the intro- 
duction of moral evil, by making it impossible for his creatures 



I 



PLAN OP SALVATION. 2k5 

to sill, was because it could not be done without making it impos' 
sible for any creature to enjoy holiness or moral happiness. 
God left his creatures free, because God is love; and be^ 
ing love, he delights to see his creatures enjoy that sublime fell- 
. city, which the chains of destiny would hare deprived them of for- 
ever. 

It follows also, from the same principle, that, as the chief hap- 
piness of angels and men consisted in the voluntary exercise of 
their faculties, and as it was possible for those faculties to be di- 
rected wrong; it was necessary for the nature and law of God to be 
communicated to their understandings, both to inform them how 
to act, and to furnish motives to good conduct. To this end the na- 
ture and effects of good and evil were made known to them, accord- 
ing to their capacity of receiving this knowledge; the divine be- 
neficence was displayed before them, inasmuch as the law was 
calculated to promote universal happiness, while justice guarded 
their liberty by all the warnings and sanctions of supreme autho- 
rity. 

But how is it to be determined whether the principle itself be a 
truth, or a mere hypothesis? My reasons for believing it a truth 
are derived chiefly from the moral attributes of God. Other argu- 
ments might be produced; but lest they should be thought too me- 
taphysical, I will content myself with appealing to those sacred 
perfections which we all acknowledge, and which are supported 
by the clear evidence of reason and revelation. Why were motives 
offered, or warnings given to angels or men, but because it was 
possible for them to act wrong? And why were they made in a 
state, in which it was possible for them to act wrong, but because 
power or agency was essential to their happiness? That they were 
not bound to the right by necessity is a matter of fact, as both an- 
gels and men departed from their first estate by rebellion against 
their Creator's laws: and if we say they could have been as com- 
pletely happy in a state of absolute fatality, as in that of moral 
liberty, it will follow that God had no regard to their felicity, in 
giving them the power of self determination. And if he had no 
regard to this, there was no benevolence in the matter, and conse- 
quently no creature ever had reason to thank his Maker for th« 
gift of moral liberty, seeing it is of no use to men or angels, and 
has become the cause of general misery. 

It is a little remarkable that our opponents seem unwilling to 
own that the creature's free agency was essential to God's glory, 
and to the perfect happiness of his children, and chose rather t« 



210 AN ESSAY ON THE 

insist that sin was necessary to accomplish these ends! We see ik 
is a lamentable matter of fact that moral and natural evil have 
entered into the creation: the question has long since been started, 
why did not God prevent it? Some have answered that God pre- 
destinated or determined that sin should be introduced because it 
w'as necessary for the display of his glory: and therefore "accord- 
ins to the council of his own will, he fore-ordained whatsoever 
comes to pass." We answer that sin was never necessary, and God 
never predestinated it; and the reason why he did not make it im- 
possible for his creatures to do wrong, was, that the liberty of op- 
tion was essential to the happiness and perfection of their nature. 
Had he deprived them of this, he would thereby have suspended 
the operations of his goodness, and prevented all that sublime 
and angelic felicity, which results from a voluntary obedience to 
his commandments. This is the only conclusion that is worthy of 
God, or that can ever be made to accord with those perfections 
which are every where ascribed to him by the incontestable voice 
of revelation. Need we now produce particular passages to prove 
that God is holy, wise and good? Every one knows the bible must 
stand or fall with these essential truths; but if God either forced 
his creatures into sin, or gave them liberty for no end but to en- 
snare them, what holiness or justice, or hatred of sin, is herein 
nianifested? If he gave them this power when it was not at all ne- 
cessary to their happiness, it is ridiculous to say it resulted from 
kindness; it is equally so, to say it resulted from wisdom, if it was 
bestowed on them for nothing; or from truth and sincerity, if he 
cautioned and warned them against evil, and at the same time 
secretly contrived or predestinated their apostacy. We must there- 
fore give up the divine attributes, and contradict the leading 
principles of revelation, or admit that God bestowed the gift of 
moral freedom, from the principle of loving kindness, to promote 
that progressive improvement and felicity, which can never re- 
sult from either a mechanical or a brutal nature. 

8. If then the happiness of God's creatures resulted from a vo- 
luntary exercise of their free powers, according to the principles 
of his divine government; and if they were influenced to good con- 
duct by moral motives exhibited in that government; it plainly 
follows thai the law must be maintained and displayed in all its 
purity, and in all its force, that happiness may be perfect and uni^ 
versal. Consequently any violation of it, or any departure from 
the just principle on which it is founded, is a direct attack upon 
the general welfare, and an audacious insult to its eternal Author. 



PLAN OF SALVATION 317 

Hence the odious nature and deep criminality of moral evil. It is a 
very dreadful evil, not merely because it has been forbidden, as if 
it was no evil till the prohibition made it so, but because it natu- 
rally tends to misery, and is a violation of the essential rights of 
God, of angels, and of men. 

9. It is a mournful truth, but too notorious to be denied, that the 
inhabitants of our world are involved in the horrors of depravity 
and guilt. We drink in iniquity like water, and se«m bent upon 
our own destruction. If sin is such a crying evil, our danger 
must be great; and had not divine goodness interposed in our fa- 
vour, we could have no hopes of ever ascending to the regions of 
the blessed. 

The reason why God executes vengeance upon sinners, is because 
it isnecessarif. It is just for them to be punished, because they de- 
serve it; but justice is executed upon them, not merely because 
they deserve it, but because it is needful for the security of those 
creatures whom the divine attributes are engaged to defend. If 
we deny this, we say the execution of justice is an unnecessary 
thing, and punishments are inflicted for no other end, but because 
it is the good pleasure of God to inflict them; which supposes him 
to be actuated by the spirit oi revenge. 

If rebels pass with impunity, the whole creation are tempted at 
once to disbelieve the goodness, justice and holiness of their crea- 
tor, and moral governor: and nothing can give them that evidence 
of these attributes which they ought to have, but a full manifesta- 
tion of God's abhorrence of moral evil. This evidence they had 
before, by the divine attributes maintaining their happiness, and 
w arning them against evil; but now that the supreme authority is 
insulted, some new proof must be given, which before was not ne- 
cessary; because if the sinners now pass with impunity, and no- 
thing be done to evince the creator's displeasure of their crimes, 
the former evidence is contradicted^ and the creatures of God are 
thereby exposed to the most fatal delusions and temptations; such 
as are calculated to destroy the harmony of heaven, and to pro- 
duce universal misery. To prevent this, the pure nature of God, 
and the ruinous eflects of sin, must be set in a proper light, for the 
sake of those creatures whose nature is fitted to the influence of 
moral motives. For these righteous purposes, and not for the 
gratification of revenge, are punishments inflicted under any just 
government in the world: and surely the administration of Al- 
mighty God is more perfect than that of men, and is infinitely far- 
ther removed from any private passion or animosity. 



219 AN ESSAY ON THE 

10. It plainly follows from what has been said, that if sinner« 
were not pardoned without a redeemer, it was not because there 
was no disposition in God to forgive them, but because he had too 
much regard for the general good to let particular offenders pass 
unpunished; unless the fatal influence of their sin could be by some 
other means prevented. If he had no disposition to pardon them, 
there was no mercy in his nature, and if he had, nothing hindered 
him from doing it, but his regard for goodgoverament and the gen- 
eral safety: consequently the accomplishment of these ends in re- 
demption, was all that the nature and attributes of God ever de- 
manded, as an atonement, propitiation, or satisfaction for sin. 



SECTION VI. 

The same subject. 

We come now to consider the formidable objection whick 
deists, and some predestinarian divines will be apt to allege 
against us. 

Be pleased to inform us, will they say, how God's hatred of sin 
could be manifested by inflicting punishments upon the innocent. 

Before we give a direct answer to this objection, it may not he 
amiss to show how easily it may be retorted. 

First: Let it be observed, that every thing in nature is surround- 
ed with difficulties, when we attempt to discover why it is so, or 
how certain eSects are produced. The fact may be plain, and may 
be supported by evidence which cannot be resisted; and yet the 
manner of it may remain inscrutable, or at least very inadequate- 
ly comprehended by the human mind. 

Consider the works of nature, and tell us how it is that he 
stretcheth the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth 
upon nothing.^ Consider the laws of gravitation, magnetism, vege- 
tation and dissolution, how are yonder stars and suns suspended in 
the heavens, and in what manner have the planets been kept in 
their orbits for thousands of years? How is animal life supported 
by various kinds of material substances, taken into the stomach, 
and why must there be a perpetual motion of the heart, and circu- 
lation of the blood, to keep us from dropping into the dust.'' How is 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 219 

it, that we see by means of one member of this body, hear by means 
of another, and taste and smell by means of organs separate from 
both the others? Why is it that I cannot see with my ears, and 
\^y is my whole body susceptible of the sense of touch, while the 
other sensations are confined to different small parts of it? Can 
any one inform me why I can move my arm, and alter its motion 
as I please, while I have no power over my blood or heart which 
continually move independent of my will? or how the members of 
my body, and other parts of matter, are put in motion at th^ in- 
conceivable influence or command of thought, which is immateri- 
al? This is a mystery so profound, that it is acknowledged to sur- 
pass all human conceptions, even by Mr. Hume, whose testimony 
or opinion in this ease, is of some importance, as it shows that 
the greatest philosophical sceptics are forced to admit the myste- 
ries of nature while they inconsistently reject those of revela- 
tion. 

**Is there any principle in all nature," says Mr. Hume, "more 
mysterious than the union of soul with body; by which a supposed 
spiritual substance acquires such an influence over a material one 
that the most refined thought is able to actuate the grossest mat- 
ter? Were we empowered, by a secret wish, to remove mountains, 
or controul the planets in their orbit; this extensive authority 
would not be more extraordinary, nor more beyond our compre- 
hension."* 

If the creation be thus full of mysteries, and if the connexion 
between cause and effect, or the manner of operation by which ef- 
fects are produced, be inconceivable while the facts are obvious, 
and supported by evidence most conclusive and Irresistible; why 
should it be thought wonderful that we cannot entirely compre- 
hend the influence of redemption, or tell how the death of Christ 
produced those great effects which are ascribed to his sufferings 
in the christian revelation? 

Secondly: as infidels are inconsistent in complaining of gospel 
mysteries while they themselves hold others that are parallel, so 
are our christian objectors in charging our system with being in- 
definite, while the complaint is so applicable to their own, and 
can be so successfully retorted. 

Let us inquire, in the first place, how they will give us a clear 
and definite account of the connexion between our Saviours suf- 
ferings and the "resurrection of the dead." He said, "because I 



* Hum»'s Essays, vol. 2, page 104, 105. 



2C0 AN ESSAY ON THE 

live ye shall live also: he is called the first fruits of them that 
slept: the apostles preached through Jesus the resurrection from 
the dead: and St. Paul says, for since by man came death, by man 
came also the resurrection of the dead."' — John. xiv. 19. 1 Cor* 
XV. 20, 21. Jicts, iv. 2. 

Now if they can understand the clear connexion between the 
death of Christ, and the resurrection of all mankind from the 
grave, we will wait patiently to have the matter explained; for 
to lis it appears very dijfficult and hard to be understood. If men 
will be raised from the deadinconsequence of Christ's having died 
for them and rose again, according to the scriptures: and if, as our 
opponents tell us, Christ did not die for reprobates: it plainly fol- 
lows that reprobates will never rise from the dead. But our Sa- 
viour savs, "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and 
shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of 
life, and they that have done evil, unco the resurrection of dam- 
nation." John V. 28, 29. 

Let us inquire again how their system clears up the mystery of 
atonement, and how they explain the sufferings of Christ, as a 
cause of the sinner's justification. The scriptures inform us, that 
he died for our sins, and arose again for our justification. That he 
gave his life a ransom for all, and made his soul an offering for 
sin. That he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for 
our iniquities: that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
and by his stripes we are healed. 

In this we are all agreed: but strange as it may seem, the very 
men who caution us against explaining away the divine mysteries, 
adhere to an hypothesis, unknown in the gospel, that was invented 
to account for the death of Christ, and to explain how the justifi- 
cation of sinners is accomplished by his atonement. We will sup» . 
pose an objector to state his argument in these terms: 

<You urge with great earnestness and assurance, that the end of 
Christ's death was to vindicate the divine purity in the pardon of 
sinners, by declaring his righteousness, or evincing his hatred 
against sin; but suppose all this be granted, your conclusion is not 
vet secure: for if Christ was innocent, as you contend, who is able 
to conceive how God's hatred of sin was manifested, by inflicting 
punishments upon the innocent? But admit our doctrine, that he 
became guilty and suffered the penalty as such, and it is easy to see 
how his hatred of sin is manifested, because he punished the sins 
of all his people in their surety, who voluntarily became guilty in 
their place.* 



( 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 22i 

Fn answer to this, 1 propose to prove these three things: First: 
that though it were true that no man could have any conception 
of the manner how Christ's death made our salvation accord with 
the glory of God, yet we should be bound in reason to believe the 
fact, notwithstanding our incapacity to comprehend the manner 
of it. 

Secondly: that the Antinomiaa hypothesis, far from clearing this 
mystery, makes it more obscure, and even involves it in contradic- 
tions. 

Thirdly: that our view of the matter, though it does not explain 
the mystery of redemption fully, or enable the human mind to 
have an adequate conception of it, yet it makes the subject of 
atonement more intelligible than the other system, because more 
consistent with itself, and with the nature of God. 

First: Suppose we had no conception how the death of Christ 
declared God's righteousness, or manifested his hatred of sin, 
would it be a fair conclusion, to infer that we ought to disbelieve 
the doctrine of redemption, until the manner of it, or the connex- 
ion between cause and effect, should be made clear? I conclude it 
would not, for the following reasons: 

1. It is possible for us to have full evidence of a fact, or of cer« 
tain effects produced by some cause, without knowing either the 
cause or the manner of its operation. Instance the ebbing and 
flowing of the tide: whether it be produced by the immediate volition 
of some active agent, or by the mechanical influence of some other 
part of the material creation, I presume remains a secret to this 
day: at least it remains so to thousands who are capable of know- 
ing the fact, by the most irresistible evidence. 

2. We may know both the cause and the effect, and yet have 
no conception of the connexion between them: witness the power 
of the mind over the members of the body, which Mr. Hume ac- 
knowledged to be as inconceivable a mystery, as our actions would 
be, "were we empowered by a secret wish, to remove mountains, 
orcontroul the planets in their orbit." While I move my hand over 
this paper, I am certain of the effect, that my hand does move, 
and equally certain that I am the cause of it, because I am con- 
scious that it move« by the volition of my w ill; yet the connexion 
between my volition and the motion of this piece of matter, or the 
manner how the effect is produced, remains a secret, of which I 
have no conception. 

3. We may know the cause, the effect and the means made use 
of, and yet have no conception of the manner how the means ope- 

Ff 



232 AN ESSAY ON THE 

rate, or wliy such means are necessary to produce the eftect. Wit- 
ness the thousands who have been restored to health, by the in- 
fluence of various kinds of medicine, who knew the agent, the 
means used, and the effect produced, and yet had bo conception of 
the secret operations by which their health was restored, and were 
unable to tell why such particular kinds of matter were necessary 
to produce the effect, rather than others, or how the healing influ- 
ence operated, to remove their disorders. 

The creation of the world, is a mystery of this latter kind. We 
have full evidence of an Almighty being, as the cause: by the evi- 
dence of our senses we ascertain the existence of a material uni- 
verse as the effect ef his power: and by revelation we are assured 
the world was created by means of his word. 

"God said let there be light, and there was light." 

"God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom 
he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
worlds. And upholdeth all things by the word of his power." Heb, 
J. 23. 

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, 
and the word was God. All things were made by him; and with- 
out him was not any thing made, that was made." John i. 13, 

Now will any man imagine that he can comprehend how God 
by his word produced the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and 
the dry land.^ And will any one do violence to his reason, and re- 
ject all the evidence we have for the cause and the effect, because 
the manner of his operation is incomprehensible by us? Will he 
deny the existence of God or the existence of the world, because 
he cannot understand how the world was made? As little reason 
has any one to disbelieve our redemption by Jesus Christ on ac- 
count of his incapacity to conceive how this salvation is accom- 
plished, or why such particular means are to be used. 

The cause or agent in this work was the same that created the 
world; the means made use of were his assuming our nature, and 
submitting to suffer and die, even the death of the cross: the effect 
produced was, a full display of the glory of God, in the grant of 
pardon to penitent sinners. 

For all this we have abundant evidence; and if we had no more 
conception how his death exhibited the evil of sin, and the purity 
of the divine nature, than how light came into being, when God 
said let there be light, our ignorance would aftord no more evi- 
dence against the truth of redemption, than against the creation^ 
and therefore we are bound to reject this infidel plea, or leap at 
once into atheism, seeing the objection bears equally against the 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 223 

ereation of the world, as against its redemption by our Lord Jesut 
Christ. 

Secondly: The Antinomian hypothesis, far from clearing thi^ 
mystery, involves the subject in darkness and contradiction. 

It were easy to show, that the practice of inventing hypotheses 
to account for the works of God, has had the same tendency in all 
agesr it has never improved human knowledge, but on the contra- 
ry, has bewildered the understanding, and led to conclusions the 
most absurd, and inconsistent that can be imagined. 

It may not be improper to mention one or two cases, and show 
their similarity to the present theory of our objectors. 

It is impossible for us to conceive how Qod created the world out 
of nothing; and hence the fact has been denied, and theories have 
been invented to account for its existence. It has been arbitrari;- 
ly taken for granted, that small particles of matter, called atoms, 
have existed eternally; that they arranged themselves together by 
chance, and that it is only by chance that this great universe con- 
tinues in being. 

The answer to this is the same that is to be given to ether hy- 
potheses: First, There is no manner of evidence for the principle 
which is taken for granted: 

Secondly: The principle, if true, would not assist our concep- 
tions, but would leave the subject as mysterious as it was before. 
Thirdly: It contradicts the immediate dictates of our intelli- 
gence, " that nothing can begin to exist, or be put into motion, 
without a cause adequate to produce the effect, and that from the 
signs of power and wisdom in the effect, we may certainly know 
that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it." 

Again: The fact is clear, that we perceive external objects by 
means of our senses; but the manner of it is inconceivable: hence 
the hypothesis has been invented, that ideas come from external o&- 
jects, through the organs of sensation, which ideas the mind imme- 
diately perceives when seated in the brain. This has been thought 
to account for the fact, and to show how we perceive the various 
objects around us. 

We are told that two grand axioms in Sir Isaac Newton's Philo^ 
sophy were these: 1. That in accounting for any phenomenon or 
event in nature, <* the cause we assign must be shown to Qxist :" 
and secondly, " it must be adequate to produce the effect." 

Now I think Dr. Reid has made it very clear, 1. That no evi- 
dence has been produced, that there are ideas in the brain : 

Secondly: That such ideas, suppose their existence to be ad- 



224 AN ESSAY ON THE 

mitted, do not account for our perception of external objects, o-v 
enable us to understand the manner of it any better than we do 
without them: and thirdly: That the theory contradicts com* 
mon sense, and led bishop Berkley and Mr. Hume by regular and 
consequential reasoning, to disprove and disbelieve the existence 
of a material world.* 

The atonement made by our Redeemer, like all the other works 
of God, has something in it, surpassing our limited. conceptions. 
The fact is clearly revealed, " that Christ Jesus came into the 
world to save sinners:" we are fully informed who the Author of 
our salvation is, and also concerning the means he made use of, 
and the ultimate end of his sufferings; but how the means he use» 
produce the effect, or accomplish the end intended, is not so easi?- 
ly understood. Here we must be content with a partial concepts 
tion, aided by metaphors and similitudes, without giving them 9. 
literal application; we must be content in a state of ignorance, 
where God has not given us the means of knowledge, lest we run 
into dangerous errors, which are far worse than ignorance. 

But alas! the professors of Christianity have followed the ex- 
aniple of the scholastic philosophers, and the effect has been the 
same. They have formed an hypothesis, to explain how the death 
of Christ made atonement for the sin of man, which instead of mak- 
ing the matter more clear, has involved it in tenfold obscurity, 
and led thousands to attribute tjie principles of mor^l evil to the 
Almighty. 

The hypothesis is. That Christ by imputation, became guilty; 
and that God punished him as a guilty being, who, having assum- 
ed the obligation of sinners, stood obi^oxious to the whole penalty 
of justice in their place. 

Though this hypothesis, like most others, at first view, has some 
appearance of plausibility, yet I think it is not difficult to make ap- 
pear, (1.) that we have no evidence that the principle is true: (2.) 
if it were proved, it would still leave the subject of atonement as 
inconceivable as it w as before: and (3.) that it i« opposed to the 
elearest evidence, and involves the doctrine of redemption in obvi- 
pus and self-evident contradictions. 

, i. What evidence have we that the Lord Jesus Christ became 
guilty^ and stood obijoxious, in law and justice, to penal sufferings?' 



* See his Essays on the Intellectual Powers, Essay II. American 
edition, vol. 1, chap. xiv. page 202. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 226 

The scriptures assure us "that he was without sin: that he was 
manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin; and that 
he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." Heb. iv, 
15. 1 John, iii. 5. 1 Peter, ii. 22. 

The prophet represents him as dying innocent, as a lamb that 
is led to the slaughter. He himself looked round upon the Jews, 
and from the consciousness of heavenly integrity said, " which of 
you convinceth me of sin." Pilate's wife, being warned in a 
dream, sent unto him, saying, "have thou nothing to do with that 
Just man." And Pilate washed his hands, saying, "I am innocent 
of the blood of this just person, see ye to it." Matt, xxvii. 19, 2^ 

Accordingly the apostles upbraided the Jews with their wick- 
edness, in crucifying the innocent redeemer, and said, "ye denied 
the holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted 
unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from 
the dead; whereof we are witnesses." Acts. iii. 14, ±5. 

It is acknowledged on all sides, that our Saviour was innocent he- 
^ore he came to redeem fallen men. 

Now if he voluntarily departed from a state of innocence to a 
state of guilt, he brought this guilt upon himself by an act which 
depended entirely upon his own will: and yet we believe the thing 
he did was perfectly right and good; then it is right and good for an in- 
nocent person voluntarily to do that which brings him into a state 
of guilt. 

If it be said, Christ was not really guilty, but the guilt af others 
was imputed to him, I must take the liberty to ask a few plaip 
questions. 

Did Christ impute the guilt of others to himseU? If he did, are 
we to understand by it, that he chose to have their guilt transfer- 
red to himseU? If so, did his choosing it really make him guilty 
or not.*^ If it did not, he really remained innocent, and they re- 
mained guilty as before; if it did, I would ask again, whether 
his thus becoming guilty of their crimes rendered them innocent 
or not.^ If they w ere rendered innocent they were from that mo- 
ment raised above the want of pardon as effectually as innocent 
Adam was before the fall: but if the Saviour became guilty, and 
yet they remain equally so as before, then we say justice was sa- 
tisfied by having additional guilt produced: inasmuch as Christ 
brought new guilt into the creation, without diminishing the old, 
fhere is no way to avoid this conclusion but by saying Christ tooK 
vart of their guilt, and left the remainder on themselves: and if so, 
Jhey still need pardon for what remains, because Christ only apr 



226 AN ESSAY ON THE 

peased the divine vengeance, for the proportion of guilt which he 
received. Again: 

If Christ did not choose to become really guilty, in what sense 
did he impute guilt to himself? If he believed he was guilty, when 
he was not, he deceived himself, and if he professed to be s«, 
when he was not, he deceived others: if then he was not really 
guilty, did not believe himself guilty, nor profess to be so, in 
what way can it be imagined that he imputed sin to himself? 

And if the Father accounted him guilty, when he was innocent, 
was not this imputation contrary to truth? Or does a false charge 
presented against an innocent person really make him guilty? 

If it be said, it is blasphemous to ask these questions, or to an- 
swer them; and that it is enough for us to know that Christ con- 
sented to become guilty, because it was necessary to the redemp- 
tion of his people; I must reply, that this is nothing more than tak- 
ing the hypothesis for granted. What proof is there that Christ 
ever consented to become guilty, or that his becoming so was ne- 
cessary to our redemption? 

We have sufficient evidence, indeed, that he consented toiake 
upon himself the form of a servant, and to die, the just for the un- 
just: we have sufficient evidence likewise that all this was was neces- 
sary to our redemption: but this is so far from supposing him guil- 
ty, that it plainly supposes the contrary, unless we choose to con- 
found the distinction between the just and the unjust. 

2. The theory of our opponents, if admitted, would not ac- 
count for the necessity of atonement, or explain the manner of it, 
any better than we understand it without such assistance. 

They say it is hard to conceive how the sufferings of an innocent 
person can prove God's opposition to sin. We reply, it is equally 
hard to conceive how his hatred against sin is manifested by impu- 
ting guilt to an innocent person. The latter case affi)rds no aid to 
our conceptions; for surely if it is difficult to conceive why the in- 
nocent should suffer, it does not mend the matter to charge the in- 
nocent with being guilty when he is not so, and thus add a false 
accusation to his other suffisrings. 

3. The hypothesis, far from clearing the mystery, involves the 
subject in darkness and contradiction. 

Though we are unable to conceive adequately of the atonement^ 
in our present state of being, yet we clearly conceive that it ac- 
cords perfectly with every righteous principle for the innocent 
to suffer, when the pain is voluntarily endured from the dictate of 
lienevolence. And a& we know the greatest works of benevolence 



PLAN OF SALVATION. a^ 

performed in this world, cost the agent very considerable suffer 
ings, of one kind or another, why should it be thought incredible 
that the redemption of sinners, an act of benevolence that trans- 
ported the heavenly hosts, should cost its gracious Author an un- 
common degree of misery? 

But the sentiment we oppose can never be reconciled with right- 
eousness; for though it is right for an innocent being to suifer 
through voluntary kindness, yet to charge an innocent person with 
guilt, and then to punish him as a criminal, is a plain violation 
of truth and justice. The imputation is false, and the innocent 
person cannot be punished as a criminal under sentence from such 
a charge, without unjustly violating his right both to the charac- 
ter and consequences of innocence. Thus the contradiction follows, 
that justice is satisfied by the violation of justice. 

Thirdly: our view, though it does not furnish us with a full and 
adequate conception of atonement, is nevertheless more definite 
and intelligible than the opposite. 

1. Our Saviour, by assuming human nature, (sin excepted) and 
submitting to suffer the agonies of the cross in that nature, on ac- 
count of sin, and as an expedient through which sinners were to ap- 
j)ly for mercy, plainly proved, that though God isagraeious Being, 
and we are his offspring, yet he is so far from being moved by a 
partial fondness to tolerate our iniquities, that if we or any other 
creatures were as near to him, as the humanity was united to God 
in Jesus Christ, he would not depart from the principles of his gO" 
vernment to deliver us from punishment. This was plainly signi- 
fied by our Saviour's death, which was therefore endured as a 
proof of the purity of the divine nature. God hereby proved before 
ail worlds that though he was disposed to receive human sinners 
to favour after their rebellion, yet this was so far from arising 
from a connivance at iniquity, or from a fondness for them to the 
neglect of other creatures, that if human nature was so near to him 
as to be, as it were, a part of himself, it should not be delivered 
from punishment through partiality, or through a neglect of just 
and impartial government. 

2, He displayed the destructive nature and demerit of sin, 
by exhibiting the dreadful effects of it in his own body on the 
cross. We may safely admit that he voluntarily endured the penal 
consequences of sin in a considerable degree, to show what awful 
miseries are incurred by disobedience; but never will we admit, I 
hope, that he consented to deserve this misery, or to take any part 
of our guilt upon himself. 



22S AN ESSAY ON THE 

His groans, and "strong cries and tears" on Calvary, spok^ a 
language which may have been understood far better by angels 
than by men; and demonstrated that God is a Being of such unsul- 
lied holiness, and of such abhorrence to moral evil, that the dire- 
ful consequences of it shall be held up by his beloved Son, between 
heaven and earth, as the only medium through which forgiveness 
shall be granted. 

Let all creatures in the universe look to the cross of Jesus, and 
learn that the pure laws of Almighty God are not to be broken 
with impunity: no mercy can be shown, but through the medium of 
"God manifested in the flesh, to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
himself," and what creature will presume that God will sacrifice 
himself at every turn, or whenever any part of his subjects shall 
choose to enter upon a course of rebellion? This glorious expedi* 
ent to save sinners, shows such love and condescension on the one 
hand, and such a jealousy for the security of good government on 
the other, that it appears calculated to astonish heaven, and cause 
evei7 thinking man upon earth to rejoice with trembling. We have 
cause to rejoice that our Redeemer has opened the way to heaven 
before us by his own blood; and to tremble, lest we be found 
among the number who neglect so great salvation, and for whom 
"there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but ^ certain fearful 
looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour 
the adversaries." 

3. Our gracious Creator, by appointing the death of Christ as 
the only medium of access; by demanding suitable humility and 
submission on the part of the sinner; and by refusing to grant 
pardon to those under the gospel who refuse to avail themselves 
of the sacrifice of Christ as the foundation of their hopes, and to 
implore mercy through his merit and intercession; has displayed 
his divine authority and unchangeable purpose to hold the 
principles of moral government, and make every rational crea- 
ture suhmit to them, or feel the consequences of disobedience. 

Thus he gives incontestable evidence of his regard for right- 
eousness; whereas, had Christ by his death discharged all claims of 
justice against the sinner; God would have proved in the face of 
heaven that redemption was designed to unnerve the principles 
of his government, and to raise ransomed sinners above all obliga- 
tions of law, during the whole of their probation. By establish- 
ing a plan of redemption, which should give them a legal indul- 
gence in their iniquities, he would demonstrate his want of holi- 
ness, ^^i-'dif he were to demand and execute the penalty twice over 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3!» 

first on their surety, and then on themselves, he would thereby 
prove his deficiency in equity and moral justice. 

Hence it appears, that the hypothesis invented to account for 
redemption, far from assisting our views of God's hatred against 
•in, represents him as devising an expedient which brings him in- 
to an inextricable dilemma: either to raise his creatures above all 
law, by granting them indulgences in sin, or to exhibit a proof of 
injustice by inflicting the same penalty twice over. 

4-. As the death of Jesus Christ, proved the great extent of God's 
benevolence, and at the same time evinced his love of righteous- 
ness and hatred of sin; — as it maintained the divine authority, 
and the sinners obligation to his law, and thereby exhibited the 
equity and impartiality of his supreme and holy administration;— 
the moral character of God was fully manifested, and his attri- 
butes harmoniously exercised in the plan of saving sinners through 
a Redeemer. 

Though the grant of pardon to rebels was a new act, which his 
creatures had never before witnessed, yiet he makes it manifest to 
them that he has adopted no new principle of action; that no 
change has taken place in his nature, but that the pardon of sin- 
ners through a Redeemer flows from the same attributes which 
were before made known^ and by which his creatures had been 
governed from the beginning. Hence the obedient part of the crea- 
tion are guarded against delusion, and their welfare is secured, 
because there is nothing in this plan of saving sinners that is cal- 
culated to weaken their confidence in God or his government; but 
on the contrary, his attributes are exhibited more extensively than 
before. 

From what has been said, I must take the liberty to draw two 
general conclusions. 

1. According to our view of atonement, the redemption of sin* 
ners by our Lord Jesus Christ flowed from all the divine attri- 
butes in harmony: it was done for the sake of showing mercy to 
the guilty and the miserable, which was a display of benevolence: 
it was done for the sake of guarding his creatures from falling in- 
to error concerning his nature, or his act of administration in res» 
toring sinners, which was a display of his moral attribute of truthc 
it was done for the sake of guarding the native happiness of his 
creatures, and of showing that no partial fondness had any influ* 
ence to diminish his sacred regard to univirsal right, which clear* 
ly manifested his justice. 



2m AN ESSAY ON THE 

2. The theory of our opponents, supposes redemption to flo^v 
from some principle in the Deity, which contradicts every known 
attribute of his nature: (1.) It supposes him to have no disposition 
to show favour to the fallen, but absolutely to execute full ven- 
geance for every crime, which contradicts his mercy or benevo- 
lence: (2) It supposes him to impute guilt to the innocent Redeem* 
er when he is not guilty, which must be a false charge, and there- 
fore his truth is contradicted: (3.) It supposes him to have arrest- 
ed the Redeemer upon this false charge, and to have legally 
punished him as a criminal, and thereby to have violated his right 
to the character and consequences of innocence, w hich plainly 
contradicts his justice. 

And after all this is done, he is supposed either to raise sinners 
above all obligations to his law, or else to impose the same obli- 
gation over again that has been to all intents and purposes dis- 
charged, by the legal condemnation and execution of the surety ia 
the sinner's place. 

What a character, to be displayed to the view of the universel 
It exhibits a scene well calculated to inspire all intelligent crea- 
tures with gloomy apprehensions, that God is about to abandon 
every moral principle of his nature, and to act upon those of false- 
hood, injustice and arbitrary malevolence. And all this is to be 
done, it seems, to satisfy divine justice! 

1 pray God to deliver all men from such dangerous and ruinous 
delusions, and enable them rightly to contemplate the immutable 
perfections of his nature, as they were exhibited by him who diedy 
the just for the unjust^ and who "has entered into heaven itself, 
now to appear in the presence of God for us.*' 

As to the objection, that Christ died upon an uncertainty, with- 
out being assured of a single soul of Adam's race, the answer is 
easy: 

The salvation of all who die in infancy is secured through the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the way is opened for all who live to years of ma- 
turity. Will any one say the merit of our Saviour's work is really 
diminished by the numbers who neglect this great salvation? Doesit 
depend upon them, or their conduct, whether the plan of redemp- 
tion be complete or not.^If so, the Saviour must secure their absolute 
salvation, so as to make their perdition impossible, in order to 
keep them from destroying his own merit! Their will must be con- 
trolled by an irresistible power, lest they should choose to conti- 
nne in sin, and thus their Redeemer would be robbed of his gloryT 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 231 

« 

The truth is, that as we advance in this controversy, it appears 

more and more evident to every reflecting mind, that the Antincmi- 
an scheme must be received in all its parts, or must be demolished 
from the foundation. The single point of legal atonement, supports 
the whole system of predestinarian orthodoxy, and one or other of 
these three things must be our inevitable portion: either (l.)to re- 
ceive the entire system of x^ntinomianism, or (2.) to contradict 
ourselves, or (3.) to disprove and abandon the notion of Christ's 
death having legally discharged all penalties in behalf of sinners, 
which is the chief corner stone of the ("fulsome") building. 

Had it been our Saviour's purpose to save mankind by force, or 
any particular part of them, he doubtless had power sufficient to 
accomplish his design, without dying on the cross; and had such a 
compulsive system been consistent with the moral attributes of 
God, I have no doubt but he would have done so; he would have 
changed every man from sin to holiness, or rather, from bad pro- 
pensities to good ones, by an absolute and irresistible influence; but 
the actions of a person thus compelled could have no relation to 
morality, and therefore God's moral perfections demanded that 
they should be saved, if at all, in a way that should not destroy 
their agency: for this reason our Saviour's atonement had, rela- 
tion to the moral attributes alone, and therefore his plan must be 
so laid as only to influence sinners by motives, and leave them to 
the liberty of choice. 

The merits of Christ were never intended to secure the salvation 
of any definite number of men, as the predestinarians do vainly 
talk; but to open the way to heaven, and make the throne of grace 
accessible to all mankind. 

" By whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand 
and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Rom. v. 2, 

"And an highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way 
of holiness." Isa. xxxv. 8. 

"Jesus saith unto him, lam the way, and the truth, and the life: 
no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John xiv. 6. 

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest 
by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living ivay, which he hath con- 
secrated for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; let us 
draw near with a true heart," &c. Heb. x. 19, 20. 

Thus it appears the blood of Christ was intended to open a ivay 
through the wilderness of sin where there w as no way, that sin- 
gers might have aecess to the throuft of grace. 



2B^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

This work is accomplished: the way is open j we are under 
great obligations to God our Saviour for this invahiahle privilege: 
^nd surely our refusing to walk in the way, does not diminish the 
merit which opened it, and Christ is under no necessity of forcing 
^ny man to heaven, for fear of losing his merit, or the glory of his 
performances. We might as well say God was under the necessity 
of forcing all men and angels to continue upright, for fear pf Ipsiirg 
Ju3 merit and glory in their creatioi^. 



SECTION vn. 

The same subject 

Our principle of atonement not only is more definite and intel^ 
ligible than that of our opponents; but also accords better \vitli 
the providence and the works of God. 

1. It agrees better with the state of man in the present world* 
If Christ died to discharge every penalty of justice in behalf of 
the human race, whence is it that the wrath of God still abideth 
on all impenitent sinners, and that they are condemned already, 
by the very sentence that was executed on their surety? All this 
is darkness and confusion upon the Antinomian scheme; but uponi 
our pl^.n the incongruity at once disappears. Because if Christ 
died to procure a day of grace for us: if we are to stand our trial 
here for a future state of reward or punishment, the calamities of 
the present world are adapted to our condition, and accord per- 
fectly with the w ise and benevolent designs of providence. 

3. It agrees better with the simplicity of the gospe|. We learn from 
the scriptures, ihsit Christ died for our sins, and yet those who re- 
pent not shall die for their own sins, and every man shall bear his 
own burden. That he bare our sins in his own body on the tree^ and 
yet the soul that sinneth it shall die, and God, without respect of 
persons, judgeth according to every man^s work. These are irre- 
concilable contradictions upon the plan of legal atonement which 
we oppose; but nothing can be plainer or more consistent, if it be 
true that Ghirst died to give us the privilege of obtaining pardon, 
or in other words, that the redemption through his blood consists in 
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; and 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 233 

pot in a legal exoneration from the curse of the law, upon prin- 
ciples of eternal justice. Our doctrine makes the day of grace and 
the day of judgment harmonize in the divine economy. It recon- 
ciles the different offices of the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour and 
the Judge of human kind. It exalts the merits of Christ, and yet 
maintains the accountability of man; and shows that they are per- 
fectly consistent with each other. If the sinner repent not, it is 
just for him to be condemned: and if he repent ami believe the 
gospel, it is just for him to be forgiven, because universal right 
has been secured by a display of the divine attributes in Jesus 
Christ. 

What stronger evidence could be given of GoiPs love to his 
creatures on the one hand, and his regard for holiness and justice 
on the other, than for his only begotten son to assume our nature, 
lead a life of spotless purity among the disaffected part of his 
creatures, submit to the dreadful effects of moral evil, and hang 
bleeding between earth and heaven, a spectacle to angels and to 
men? The great design of God in this astonishing event, was to 
exhibit a grand and awful argument or proof to all worlds, that sin 
is such a dreadful evil, so destructive in itself, and so hateful to 
the pure nature of Deity, that no sinner can be forgiven, however 
penitent he may be, but through the intercession of that Redeemer, 
who exhibited the direful effects of sin, in his ow n bleeding body 
on the tree. He that was rich in glory, became poor: the son of 
God, whose right hand formed the stars of heaven, takes upon 
himself the form of a servant, and becomes obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross! Behold him, ye heavens! and hear him 
groan his last! his agonizing spirit as it were abandoned by earth 
and heaven, cries out in the bleeding anguish of distress, " My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me! His sweat became as 
great drops of blood falling to the ground; while his soul was ex- 
ceeding sorrowful even unto death!" With all the innocence and 
purity of heaven in his nature, he is wounded, and bruised, and 
mangled with thorns and nails; while a burden of grief intolerable, 
presses down his spirit. Sin, the original cause ofall misery, is held 
in such unchangeable detestation by the Creator, that to discour- 
age the practice of it, and to exhibit iis dreadful horrors, the Lord 
of Glory expires under that misery which is its native production. 

This is the great proof of God's unchangeable perfections: and 
the very end for w hich the Redeemer thus suffered, was, " To de- 
clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, 



234 AN ESSAY ON THE 

his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him 
ivhich believeth in Jesus." 

The Almiglity gave proof of his holy attributes, before sin enter- 
ed into the creation, by those rewards^ which evinced his appro- 
bation of righteousness; and by those threatenings or penalties 
annexed to his laws, which declared his abhorrence of moral 
evil. But after sin is entered into the world, what must be done? 
Can angels do any thing to justify the government? No. If a thou- 
sand of them were sacrificed for man, this would be so far from 
proving God's regard for holiness and justice, that it would be a 
demonstration of injustice and partiality. No being less than God 
can do any thing for the redemption and salvation of fallen crea- 
tures. Divine mercy pities fallen men, and is disposed to pardon 
all that will submit to proper government, whereby they may be 
qualified to become members of the peaceful society of heaven; but 
as an evidence to the whole creation, that this pardon does not re- 
sult from any disposition to connive at a spirit of rebellion, "God 
lakes upon himself the mortal nature of man; in that nature he 
exhibits a shining example of the most pure and heavenly virtue: 
in that nature he opposes sin in all its secret windings in the heart 
and life of man; and in that nature he takes upon himself the bur- 
den of our sins, not by becoming guilty, but by submitting to bear 
the excrutiating effects of sin, in his own body on the tree. Eve- 
ry groan he utters, cries aloud to earth and heaven: behold what 
manner of love the father hath bestowed upon vian: Behold the 
horrid nature and tormenting influence of moral evil! Behold the 
Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the God of all the armies 
of heaven, thus concealed in humanity, and bleeding on the cross! 
.Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world! 

Behold these wounds and bruises, sweat, and biood and tears: 
hear those strong cries, and ^^^tness those dying agonies, a» a de- 
monstration of God^s righteousness — and see all nature corro- 
borate the amazing argument! The veil of the temple is rent from 
the top to the bottom; the mountains tremble, as if shaken from 
their foundation; the graves are opened; the sun blushes as in sack- 
cloth, and hides his shining face in darkness; while the very an- 
gels, it may be, suspend their song; and all the heavenly regions 
are brought to pause in holy and astonished silence, while God 
breaks down the dreadful barrier; condemns sin to eternal infa- 
my, and opens the gates of mercy to mankind! 

This was a proof of the divine goodness and holiness, which 
none but God could give: for if Christ was a mere creature, he wafc 



PLAN OF SALVATION 235 

under an obligation of perpetual obedience to the law for himself: if 
he voluntarily left his own duty, which the law required, to go and 
do that which it did not require of him, it was a proof of disobedience 
to God's government: if he was a sinner, he deserved what came 
Upon him: if he was an innocent and holy creature, and if God pun- 
ished him as a criminal, it would prove nothing but injustice and 
partiality. But if the eternal God himself, who was under no 
obligation to the law given to creatures, voluntarily came under it 
that he himself might redeem them that were under the law, his 
regards for righteousness are gloriously displayed, as well as his 
compassion for miserable offenders. 

This argument is urged with peculiar force and propriety, by 
Mr. Joseph Benson, who revised and finished Mr. Fletcher's "Vin- 
dication of Christ's Divinity, inscribed to Dr. Priestley." 

"According to the apostle," says he, "one principal end of the 
death of Christ was to demonstrate God's righteousness — that is, 
the purity of his nature, implying his infinite hatred to sin, the au- 
thority of his law, which denounces vengeance against the sinner, 
and the equity of his government, — or, in one word, his justice. 
'Justified freely says he by his grace, through the redemption 
which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation, 
through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteous- 
ness, by or on account of the remission of past sins, through the 
forbearance of God, for a demonstration I say of his righteousness 
in this present time, that he might be just, and yet the justifier of 
him that believeth in Jesus.' But surely, if satisfaction can be made 
for the injury done to the glory of God by all the sins of all man- 
kind, and their salvation from eternal destruction into everlasting 
life and happiness, can be rendered consistent with the divine at- 
tributes in consequence of their repentance upon such easy terms 
as the giving up of one mere man to temporal death for two or 
three days; — whatever inference the intelligent creation of God 
may draw from hence in favour of his clemency, they can draw 
none in favour of his righteousness or justice: but on the contrary, 
they will find their ideas of it contracted; and will be inclined tb 
suppose, both that sin is no very great eviL and tliat God is not 
much displeased with it; inasmuch as he forgives the complicated 
and aggravated guilt of so many myriads of sinners, merely be- 
cause one mere man, like themselves, dies for them. Surely to 
talk of God's righteousness being demonstrated by such a scheme 
as this, — that he might be and appears to be just, while he is the 
merciful justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, would be highly 
absurd and ridiculous." — JRational Vindication* voL U page il9. 



236 AN IBSSAY OiNT THE 

As this argument of Mr. Benson not only supports the divinify 
of our Saviour, but proves that the end of his suti'ering was to de- 
monstrate the equity of God's government, by displaying the great 
evil of sin, and the Almighty's displeasure against it, his coneln* 
sion stands upon the very principle defended in these pa^es, and 
therefore the above quotation is another proof of the respectable 
authority and antiquity of this doctrine, and that it is not a novel- 
ty, never before heard of in the christian world. 

3* Our view of redemption is better calculated than the op* 
posite to influence the minds of angels or men, and to reconcile 
all things in Christ, whether they be things in earth or things in 
heaven. 

If the Lord Jesus died, not to give man a right to demand his li- 
berty, but to open a way of salvation, to bring him under a gra* 
cious government, or covenant of mercy, and thus to introduce 
men into the society of angels, not by constituting them innocent 
^vith Antinomian imputations, but by purifying them unto himself| 
a peculiar people, zealous of good works: — how does the wisdom 
and goodness of this economy shine forth and influence the very 
angels to rejoice, and give glory to Goclin the highest! Jesus 
displays the glory of God before them, and secures the influence 
of the divine government: through his name sinners are pardon- 
ed and saved, and not till his grace has given them a moral fitness 
for that salvation; therefore the interests of heaven and earth 
completely centre in the Lord Jesus Christ, and angels rejoice at 
the salvation of sinners, and gladly own them as their brethren. 

<'In this our first period of existence," says Dr. Beattie, *« ouf 
eye cannot penetrate beyond the present scene, and the human race 
appears one great and separate community: but with other worlds, 
and other communities, m e probably may, and every argument for 
the truthof our religion gives us reason to think, we shall be con- 
nected hereafter. And if, by our behaviour, we may, even while 
here, as our Lord positively affirms, heighten, in some degree, the 
felicity of angels, our salvation may hereafter be a matter of im- 
portance, not to us only, biit to many other orders of immortal be- 
ings. They, it is true, will not suffer for our guilt, nor be rewarded 
for our obedience. But it is not absurd to imagine, that our fall and 
recovery may be useful to them as an example: and, that the Di- 
viue grace manifested in our redemption may raise their adoration 
and gratitude into higher raptures, and quicken their ardour t6 
inquire, with ever new delight, into the dij^pensations of infinite 
wisdom. This is not mere conjecture. It derives plausibility from 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^^t 

many Analogies in nature, as well as from Holy Writ, which repre- 
sents the mystery of on,r redemption as an object of curiosity to su* 
perior beings, and our repentance as an occasion of their joy."— 
Beattie^s evidences, page 133. 

This subject is father illustrated by Dr. Porteus, late bishop of 
London. 

"It is, I believe, generally taken for granted," says he, "that it 
was for the human race alone, that Christ suffered and died; and 
we are then asked, with an air of triumph, whether it be conceiva- 
ble, or in any degree credible, that the eternal Son of God should 
submit to so much indignity and so much misery for the fallen, the 
wicked, the wretched inhabitants of this small globe of earth, 
which is as a grain of sand to a mountain, a mere speck in the 
universe, when compared with that immensity of worlds, which the 
sagacity of a great modern astronomer has discovered in the bound- 
less regions of space. 

"But on what ground is it concluded, that the benefits of Christ's 
death extend no farther than to ourselves? As well might we sup- 
pose, that the sun was placed in the firmament merely to illumi- 
nate and warm this earth that we inhabit. To the vulgar and the 
illiterate this actually appears to be the case. But philosophy 
teaches us better things. It enlarges our contracted views of di- 
vine beneficence, and brings us acquainted with other planets and 
other worlds, which share with us the cheering influence and the 
vivifying warmth of that glorious luminary. Is it not then a fair 
analogy to conclude, that the great ^spiritual light of the world,' 
the fountain of life, and health, and joy to the soul, does not scat- 
ter his blessings over the creation with a sparing hand, and that 
the Sun of Righteousness rises with healing in his wings to other 
orders of beings besides ourselves.^ Nor does this conclusion rest 
on analogy alone. It is evident from scripture itself, that we are 
by no means the only creatures in the universe interested in the 
sacrifice of our Redeemer. We are expressly told, that as by him 
were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible; and by him all things consist: so by him also 
was God pleased (having made peace through the blood of his 
cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things 
in earth, or things in heaven; that in the dispensation of the ful- 
ness of times, he might gather together in one, 'all things in Christy 
both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even in him.'* 

* Col. i. 16, 20. Eph. i. 10. 
H h 



2B» AN ESSAY ON THE 

"From intimations such as these, it is highly probable, that in 
the great work of redemption as well as of creation, there is a 
vast stupendous plan of wisdom, of which we cannot at present 
so much as conceive the whole compass and extent. And if we 
could assist and improve the mental as we can the corporeal sight; 
if we could magnify and bring nearer to us by the help of instru- 
ments, the great component parts of the spiritual, as we do the 
vast bodies of the natural world; there can be no doubt, that the 
resemblance and analogy would hold between them in this as it 
does in many other well-known instances; and that a scene of 
wonders would burst in upon us from the one, at least equal, if not 
superior, to those which the united powers of astronomy and of op- 
tics disclose to us in the other. 

"If this train of reasoning be just; if the redemption wrought by 
Christ extended to other worlds; if its virtues penetrate even into 
Ireaven itself; if it gather together all things in Christ; who will 
then say, that the dignity of the agent was disproportionad to the 
magnitude of the work; and that it w as not a scene sufficiently 
splendid for the Son of God himself to appear upon, and to display 
the riches of his love, not only to the race of man, but to ma ny 
Qtherordersof intelligent beings." Forteus's Sermons^ page 27 4<, 275, 

The above sentiments may appear alarming to those who may 
be disposed to limit the Holy One of Israel; but as the heaven is 
high above the earth, so great is his mercy towards his creatures: 
"my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your 
ways, saith the Lord." As the sefttiment of those respectable au- 
thors accords with the perfections of God, the analogy of nature, 
and the testimony of revelation, we are surely warranted in yield- 
ing to their conclusion, so far at least, as to believe that all God's 
upright creatures receive advantage by the display of his glory in 
the plan of redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they not in- 
terested in the divine attributes as well as man? And if redemption 
displayed those attributes beyond every thing that has appeared 
since the creation, how can it be imagined that the bene- 
lit of this wonderful event should be confined alone to us and our 
children? Are the angels of heaven indifferent spectators.^ Or are 
their interests closely connected with ours in that common Sa- 
viour who came to recoHcile all things unto himself? 

Whether the following scriptures do not establish this doctrine, 
I leave the reader to judge: 

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive- 
Jiess of sins, according to the riches of his grace, having made 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 239 

known unto iis the mystery of his will, according to his good plea- 
sure, which he hath purposed in himself: [namely] that in the dis? 
pensation of the fullness of times [when all the times and dispen- 
sations of his grace and proridenee shall he full or completed] he 
might gather together in one. all things in Christ, both which are 
in heaven and which are in earth, even in him. Eph. i. 7, 9, 10. 
In whom we have redemption through his blood, [and what has 
that redemption accomplished] even the forgiveness of sins, in his 
name who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every 
creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, 
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created 
by him and for him; and he is before all tilings, and by him all 
things consist; and he is the head of the body, the church; who is 
the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he 
might have the pre-eminence: for it pleased the Father that in him 
should all fulness dwell: and (having made peace through the blood 
of his cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I 
say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. Col. i. 
14, 13, &c. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is na- 
med. Eph. iii. 15. 

O for this love let rocks and hills, 
Their lasting silence break; 
And all harmonious human tongues, 
The Saviour's praises speak. 

Angels, assist our mighty joys, 
Strike all your harps of gold; 
But when you raise your highest note*;. 
His love can ne'er be told. 



SECTION vm. 

The two systems of redemption, tested by the 7iative consequences 
which flow from them. 

As no doctrine, founded in truth, will be discredited by exami- 
nation, or be put out of countenance by an exposure of its genu- 
ine consequences; we 4esire that our views of atonement may be 



24B AN ESSAY ON THE 

Bcrutinixed, and traced in all their native tendency: not doubting 
the more clearly truth is seen, the more conviction it will car- 
ry to every candid mind. I purpose, in this section, to exhibit 
some other effects of the two opposing systems, that we may 
judge of them by their fruits. 

1. In what a consistent, and soul-cheering light does our plan 
represent that Eternal Being, who is love in the abstract, and of 
whose goodness there is no end! It represents him as exercising 
his power, and wisdom, and justice, in perpetual subserviency to 
his pure and everlasting kindness. Why did he lay down a plan 
of salvation, by a demonstration of his righteousness through a 
Redeemer.^ That everlasting felicity might flow to mortal men. 
Why does he determine that justice and holiness shall be display- 
ed and satisfied by the punishment of obdurate and incorrigible 
sinners? That the principles of moral order may not be deranged 
or interrupted, through which the benignity of God supports the 
unceasing happiness of heaven. Why does he govern his children 
by moral motives, and not by a compulsive or irresistible influence? 
That they may be assimilated into the Divine nature, and enjoy 
that ineffable tranquillity which is inseparable from a voluntary 
choice. Why does he give some of his servants one talent, some 
two, and others five? That his manifold wisdom may be display- 
ed, a pleasing variety be maintained through the spiritual as well 
fis the natural world, that all his children, the constitution of 
whose nature is such, that few sources of delight are more reviv- 
ing to them than variety, may thus behold his wonderful works, 
and exercise their different gifts for the mutual benefit of all. 
Here is no reprobation or free-wrath; no partial or humorous 
fondness for one to the neglect of another; no double dealing, dis- 
gimolation or hypocrisy; the parts all taken together exhibit one 
general scheme of benevolence, transporting to an intelligent na- 
ture* and every way worthy of God. 

Dr. Clarke, speaking of the Supreme Being, says, "a general 
definition of this Great First Cause, as far as human words dare 
attempt one, may be thus given. The eternal, independent, and 
self-existent Being: the Being whose purposes and actions spring 
from himself, without foreign motive or influence: He who is ab- 
solute in dominion: the most pure, most simple, most spiritual of 
ajl essences: infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true and holy: the ■ 
eaose of all being, the upholder of all things: infinitely happy, 
because infinitely good; and eternally self-sufficient, needing no- 
thing that he has made. Illimitable in his immensity, inconceiva» 



I 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 2541 

ble in bis mode of existence, and indescribable in liis essence: known 
fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can only be com- 
prehended by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite 
wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite 
goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and 
kind." Comment on the first of Genesis. 

In the mouth of those three witnesses, Mr. Wesley, Dr. Clarke, 
and the apostle John, let the truth be established, that God is love: 
or, in other words, that goodness is the leading principle of his 
conduct towards his creatures, from the beginning of the creation 
to eternity, and that no other attribute of his nature ever did, 
or ever will, contradict for a moment, that glorious and amiable 
perfection which is the fountain of all happiness, and without 
which, our Creator would be an object of terror and dismay, and 
would have nothing attracting in his nature. Power and wisdom 
have no charms but what they derive from benevolence: remove 
them from under its influence, and they are objects of inditter- 
enee, or of disgust and detestation. The Devil possesses both 
wisdom and power; yet he is an object of our just abhorrence, for 
this reason only, that his faculties are no longer directed by love 
and kindness, but by injustice and malevolence. 

"Remove goodness from all the other divine attributes," sayi 
Dr. Brown, '-and suppose the Supreme Being unconcerned for the 
happiness of his creation, and say, whether his nature would then 
appear as amiable, adorable, and transcendently excellent, as it 
now appears to every reflecting mind. And if goodness constitute 
the supreme glory of the divine nature, that which gives to every 
other perfection its true beauty and light, and completes the real 
character of Deity; is it possible that any human excellence or 
advantage should compensate for the absence of this primary vir- 
tue?" Brown's "Natural Equality of Men," page 163. 

2. As our doctrine glorifies God, on the one hand, so, on the other, 
it opposes every thing that is contrary to his nature. Nothing 
can be more discouraging to sin of every description: for it repre- 
sents sin as the parent or first cause of all misery; — as waging war 
against the nature of God; — as being unjust, unreasonable, inex- 
pressibly detestable;— .and as assaulting the peace and happiness 
of the whole intelligent creation. If the Lord of Glory came down 
from heaven to restore our iapsed powers; if he oflered himself 
without spot to God, and became obedient unto death, even the 
death of the cross, for our redemption: and if we continually re- 
sist all the influences of his grace, multiply our crimes ^ and eontv- 



242 AN ESSAY ON THE 

nue to injure aud ruin our moral faculties till our probation is 
over — what can we expect but sudden destruction, seeing there re- 
maineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking 
for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the ad- 
versaries? If we reject the offers of pardon, and harden our hearts 
to the last, as sure as God is eternally good, just and holy, we shall 
he banished from his presence and the presence of his holy angels, 
into the pit of destruction, with the (alien spirits who have obsti- 
nately prepared themselves for those regions of confusion aud des- 
pair, by treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath, aud revela- 
tion of the righteous judgment of God. 

3. If all the divine perfections, the principles of God's moral 
government, and the common interests of the heavenly regions, 
stood jointly opposed to man's salvation, till they were reconciled 
to it in Jesus Christ; — w hat can be imagined more adapted to the 
wants of men than our doctrine, or better calculated to influence 
them, with all humility of mind, to depend upon Christfor salva- 
tion? If they expect or endeavour to attain it any other way, than 
this which is procured by his meritorious death and intercession, 
they might as well undertake to demolish the throne of God, or to 
change his immutable nature. It is evident that Christ, with us, 
is all in all; we are dependent on him for wisdom, righteousness, 
ganctification, and redemption. Our Saviour has died for us; but 
it is not to give us a legal discharge, and put the government out of 
his own hands; ke still keeps us in a state of proper dependence, 
and we must approach in his name, as humble suppliants, for par- 
don, aud for all things needful for life and godliness. 

AVhereas the opposite system encourages lawless presumption, 
by assuring the elect they are such eternal favourites of God, that 
his decree secures their salvation as absolutely as thepillars of hea- 
ven are secured. Their sins can never alter the decree; therefore 
they may rest safe and satisfied in the midst of their iniquities. But 
he whose name has been called Jesus, shall save his people from 
their sins: consequently he who trusts to be saved in his sins, is not 
depending upon Christ for salvation. As the plan of our Redeemer 
is to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; — 
as this is his method of saving sinners, — it is ridiculous for any 
man to look for salvation some other way, and call this depending 
upon Christ. 

And if they say the unchangeable decree of God secures their 
sanctification as absolutely as their glorification, this alters not 
the matter: for behold an elect sinner indulging his evil nature 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 243 

with presumptuous unconcern: while Christ and the'gospel are call- 
ing him to repentance and amendment, with assurances of aftbrding 
him every necessary aid, he replies, and very consistently upon 
the predestinarian hypothesis, that the decree of God is unaltera- 
bly fixed, and the precise time of its operation; therefore when the 
time comes, he will be drawn out of his sins as sure as God is 
omnipotent: as he does not feel this irresistible operation at pre- 
sent, he waits patiently and rests very securely, assuredly gather- 
ing that the day of power will approach in due season, and des- 
troy his sins by as absolute an influence as was felt by the Egyp- 
tian host when they were overwhelmed in the mighty waters. Now 
who does not perceive that this man is depending, not upon Christ, 
who says, now is the accepted time, and noW is the day of salvation; 
but upon the original act of predestination. The decree is his de- 
pendence; and if it should fail him, or prove to be an Autinomian 
chimera, he will fall as "a foolish man who built his house upon 
the sand: but whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth 
them, (that is, dependeth upon me for salvation,) I will liken him 
nnto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain 
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon 
that house: and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.'' Matt. 
Vii. 24. 

Here it will be objected, that Arminians are tlie men w^ho are 
deficient in a proper trust upon the Saviour, because they do not 
expect him to draw them to heaven by a force which cannot be re- 
sisted. The notion that final salvation or damnation will turn in 
any degree upon the creature's agency, has been thought to rise 
from the natural pride of man's heart, and that a christian can- 
not be truly humble till he is brought to believe that it is impossi- 
ble for him to take a single step towards heaven, but as he is im- 
pelled by an irresistible power. While governed by the Armini- 
an belief, he depends, in part at least, upon himself; whereas a 
truly humble christian depends solely upon Christ to do every thing 
that is necessary to his salvation. Answer: 

1. This objection supposes that humility is inseparable from 
the belief, that we are destitute of agency, or that our will is con- 
trolled irresistibly: for if humility may exist separate from that 
belief, it is not essential to humility, and of course an Arminian 
may be truly humble with the full belief that there is something 
for him to do which he may neglect, and the neglect of which will 
forfeit his salvation. It also follows, if such a belief and a spirit 
of humility be not essentially connected together, that a Calvin- 



£^4 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ist may be as proud with his belief, as if he believed the Armini- 
an doctrine. And if a man can be truly humble, and repose a true 
confidence in his Saviour, without that belief, he does not need it 
to produce those effects, because they are produced without it, 
and entirely independent of its mighty influence. 

But if it be affirmed, that the predestinarian faith atfd christian 
humility are inseparable from each other, these consequences will 
follow: First, that all sinners, who can but persuade themselves 
that salvation depends not at all upon their doings, but that 
Christ mast do all for them, and do it irresistibly, are thereby 
brought into a state of true christian humility, and gospel confi- 
dence in their Saviour. Secondly, that the angels who sinned, and 
Adam in Paradise, were destitute of true humility and a right de- 
pendence on God, unless they believed their standing depended 
not upon any action of their own, and that every thing necessary 
to their perseverance in righteousness would be produced by the 
irresistible operations of omnipotence. 

If they believed this, their belief was either true or false; if It 
was true, then their apostacy did not result from the neglect of 
any thing depending upon their own power, but from some volun- 
tary act of their Creator; if it was not true, and yet they must be- 
lieve it in order to continue humble, we say their humility was 
maintained by believing a falsehood. 

Thirdly: That a christian to continue truly humble, must not 
labour to keep himself zw the love of God; for every attempt of the 
kind arises from a belief that he has power to do something neces- 
sary to his salvation, which belief is supposed to destroy his hu- 
mility. For if he believes he has no power to do any good thing 
and still tries to do many good things, you say his christian obe- 
dience consists in trying to do what he ai the same time believes to 
be impossible. If an irresistible power is to do for him, and in 
him, every thing that is necessary, he cannot surely aim at doing 
any thing else, without labouring to do that which is unnecessary^ 
a kind of work that holds a close connexion with the popish doc- 
trihe of supererogation. And if he only labours to do the sam# 
things which the irresistible power is to produce, does this arise 
from a belief that his exertions will make the force more thati 
irresistible, or from a conviction that it may be resisted, and that 
it is really necessary for him to labour for the meat which endur- 
eth unto everlasting life? John vi. 37. 

The truth is, that a gospel trust upon Christ is the trust of a 
•ervaut who feels his responsibility, and his need of divine sup- 



PLAN OF SALVATION 345 

port; but wlw does not depend upon the Master to obey bis own 
commandments, or to deliver him from the obligation and necessi- 
ty of obeying them. 

True humility arises, not from a belief that we have no power, 
but from a conviction of our dependance upon God for the power 
we possess, and for the continuance of it, together with a convic- 
tion of our obligation to use that power according to the directions 
of him who gave it, and of our natural proneness to use it wrong. 
Did any man ever feel humbled and debased from considering his 
inability to create new worlds, or to controul the planets of heaven? 
And when a child has a little strength to walk, but cannot move 
forward without leaning upon his father's arm, does he not feel his 
dependance more than a person feels his dependance upon the 
earth, while it suppforts him by a law of nature which he cannot 
resist? A christian humility consists in a conscious sense of his 
weakness, which necessarily supposes some degree of activity or 
power, without which it can have no existence, for certainly where 
there is no power there can be no weakness, because the mean* 
ing of the word is, a small degree of power. 

2. The objection supposes that the w«rk of a christian in doing 
the will of God, which is using his power to the end for which it 
was given, has a native tendency to produce pride; to keep him 
humble, they say, he must be able to do nothing, but Christ must 
do all: if you permit him to work out his own salvation, he will 
feel his importance, and be proud of his own performances. That 
men may be, and often are, proud of their own works is granted; 
but this only happens when they lose sight of their extreme weak* 
ness and perpetual dependance on God: bring them to a sense of 
this, if you would subdue their pride, and never charge God fool* 
ishly, by supposing that pride naturally rises out of the proper ex- 
ercise of those faculties which he has given to his creatures. 

I am apt to think it rises from very different sources: are men 
never proud of any thing but what is produced by their own 
works? are they not proud of their natural beauty, wit or noble 
birth, things which have not been produced by their own activity? 
Suppose two men have been exalted to offices of the highest trust 
and honour in a nation: one has been gradually raised on account 
of his integrity and good conduct; the other, without any regard 
to his works, has been suddenly elevated to this honourable 
height: which of those men would be the more likely to be high- 
minded on account of the great favour he had received at court? 
The one, yon say, has all his works to boast of, anil th» other has 
li 



524.6 AN ESSAY ON THE 

received his gratuitous election without either works or condi- 
tions: yet it is evident from the common experience of mankind, 
that the antinomian courtier will be more apt to have exalted no^ 
tions of himself than his neighbour, who had been thus favoured 
on account of his integrity and good conduct. 

The truth is, when men know they are favourites, it is very 
common for them to value themselves highly upon it, though the 
partiality exercised towards them be not founded upon any of their 
works. It is enough that they have the preference to others, 
whom they are fond to consider as inferiors, for no other reason 
but because they have not been so highly exalted. And if I might 
be indulged in such a speculation, I would even venture to pre- 
sume it not impossible that thousands of the elect in Z on have 
reflected upon the amazing fondness of their prince, upon their 
being preferred to the rest of mankind, as the eternal favourites 
€>f God, with a secret gratification very like to that complained of 
in the present objection. " 

3. Do not all men till the ground, or exercise themselves in 
other works of industry, from a conviction that their performances 
are needful to the sustenance of life.^ They know they are de- 
pendant on God for a harvest; but they believe at the same time, 
that their own works are so necessary, that a neglect of them will 
bring poverty or death, and idleness will cover man with rags. — 
Will this conviction, and consequent diligence, necessarily pro- 
duce self-confidence? or is the diligent man more apt to be proud, 
who expects to be preserved in a way of industry, than he who ne- 
glects his business, and hopes to be supported some other way? I 
presume our opponents will not deny that the God of nature has 
suspended our preservation upon the condition of industry, and 
that a total neglect of it will speedily terminate in death: if they 
say, therefore, that the performance of conditions^ from a convic- 
tion of their being so essential, that a neglect of them will deprive 
us of the blessings connected with the performance, naturally or 
necessarily leads to pride, they accuse the God of nature and pro- 
vidence with an egregious blunder in his arrangements, seeing, 
according to them, the present constitution of the world has a na- 
tive tendency to encourage haughtiness and selfish independence. 

4. Our doctrine gives every encouragement to sinners, at the 
same time that it discourages sin, and every vain presumption. 

It teaches that goodness is the leading principle of the Divine 
Creator towards all mankind: that there is nothing in his nature 
which delights in our misery? that the redemption which is in 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 247 

Jtsus Christ has opened a door of salvation for all men: and that 
everlasting happiness is secured to all who die in infancy, to all 
heathens who /ear God and work righteousness, (according to the 
liglit they have,) and to all christians who repent and believe the 
gospel. Acts X. 34. Mark i. 15. 

The other very naturally leads to presumption or despair. The 
fancied elect may presume upon absolute security and inamissi- 
ble salvation; but the reprobate is destined to the regions of dark- 
ness, and may bemoan his bitter fate in vain. Our opponents tell 
us, however, that we know not who are elected, and who are not. 
What then? This only leaves us doubtful whether we mu^t pre- 
sume or despair, and when the point is settled in our minds, on one 
side or the other, its corresponding consequence follows as natu* 
rally as light flows from the sun. But it is said that our notions 
are discouraging to the penitent, because we say salvation is sus- 
pended upon his own works, while he feels, in fact, that he can 
do nothing. We answer, the man who is not satisfied till he has 
an assurance that his future salvation or destruction depends not 
at all upon his doings, is pleading for as great encouragement as 
any sinner in the world could desire; namely, such as shall assure 
him there is no danger in wickedness, and no benefit in reforma- 
tion, for the salvation of a man's soul. Our doctrine gives every 
encouragement, excepting such as shall influence men to presume 
upon impunity in their disobedience. The Spirit is ready to help 
our infirmities, and is given to every man to profit withal; there- 
fore we have everything to revive our hopes, provided we be will- 
ing to depend upon Christ for salvation, and not upon our vain 
delusions. 

5. The necessity of a change of heart, or of gospel holiness, na- 
turally follows from our view of redemption: for if Christ died to 
open the way for men to be saved upon certain conditions, and if 
those conditions are, a submission to the divine government, and a 
conformity of our souls to the holy nature of God, it plainly follows, 
that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. 
John. iii. 3. If the death of Christ alone fully satisfied the divine 
attributes in the actual salvation of sinners, then nothing else is ne_ 
cessary to their salvation; and neither repentance, faith nor holi- 
ness are needful to make their final happiness accord with the jus- 
lice and purity of God, since as our opponents tell us, every attri- 
bute was satisfied with their salvation, by the death of Christ, and 
by nothing else. Here stands a sinner for whom the Redeemer suf- 
fered on the cross: would the attributes of God be satisfied for him 



^8 AN ESSAY ON TVLl^ 

to be taken to heaven in his present impenitence or not? If they 
would, a change of heart is not needful to make a sinner's glorifi- 
cation accord with the divine nature; if they would not, then some- 
thins; is still necessary to reconcile God to our admittance into his 
everlasting kingdom. Consequently our doctrine is true, that 
Christ's death rendered such satisfaction as reconciled the divine 
justice and holiness to man's probation, and to the free offer of eter- 
nal life to every man; but that the act of God, in the grant of par* 
don, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, in our sanctification, are 
no less essential than his death, to satisfy them in our final accep- 
tance, or glorification at the right hand of the Majesty on high* 
Hence it appears that ours is the only system which makes a change 
of heart and gospel holiness essentially and indispensably necessa^ 
ry to salvation. 



SECTION IX. 

Our system harvaonizes the doctrines and clears up many difficult 
passages of revelation* 

The principle defended in these pages unites and harmonizeg 
the leading and essential doctrines of Christianity. It may be con- 
sidered as the Key-stone in the solid arch of revelation, or as the 
centre point of union, where "^'mercy and truth have met together," 
and where "righteousness and peace have kissed each other." At 
the head of the following columns stands the Key-stone, which 
unites and supports the great doctrines on the right hand and on 
the left: take this away and the whole building falls in ruins to 
the ground; or in other words, those leading principles of revela- 
tion will be found utterly inconsistent with each other. 

THE KEY-STONE. 

Christ died to procure a gracious probation for men — to open a 
•way through which they might all be saved — to make the throne 
of grace accessible, by making it just for God to grant assistance^ 
pardon, sanctification and eternal life to all but the finally impen- 
U^at:^ut be did not die to make the throne of justice accessibly 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 



24» 



to the sinner, by discharging every legal demand against him, an4 
thus authorizing him to sue out his liberty and claim an exemp- 
tion from all penalties as his lawful right. 



FIRST CLASS OF TRUTHS. 

1. ChrisVs death gives us the 
privilege to come boldly to the 
tfirone of grace. 

2. Without Christ it is in vain 
for us to plead i'or pardon before 
the thvone of grace. 

3. It is unjust for men to be 
forgiven ivithout a Redeemer. 

4. A Redeemer is essential to 
a sinner's salvation, [and] 

5. Christ is the gracious Sa- 
viour of mankind, who delights 
to extend mercy unto them, and 
lilot out their transgressions. 

6. Our works of righteousness 
cannot procure our salvation; 
but it is accomplished by the 
grace of God in Jesus Christ. 

7. Christ has actually deli- 
vered all mankind from the 
curse of the law. [in the irrevo- 
cable form in which it stood 
without a Redeemer.] 

8. Christ's death made it just 
for God to grant pardon to sin- 
ners. 

9. Christ tasted death for 
every man, and bare our sins in 
his own body on the tree, l P. 
It. 24. 



SECOND CLASS OF TRUTHS- 

1. Grorf's mercy, in the grant 
of pardon gives us the privilege 
to come boldly to the throne of 

judgment. 

2. TFithout pardon it is in 
vain for us to plead the m£rits of 
Christ before the throne ofjudg- 
ment. 

3. It is unjust for men to b€ 
saved through a Redeemer zmf A* 
out obtaining forgiveness. 

4. God's mercy in the grant of 
pardon is equally essential to a 
sinner's salvation. 

5. Christ is the moral govern- 
or of mankind, who delights to 
maintain impartial justice among 
them, and finally to judge and 
reward them according to their 
works. 

6. Withrtut works of right- 
eousness, the grace of God in 
Jesus Christ will not save any 
man. 

7. No man is actually dell» 
vered from the curse of the law 
[in its revocable form through a 
Redeemer] till he obtains the 
forgiveness of his sins. 

8. The grant of pardon makes 
it just for sinners to be admit- 
ted into heaven. 

9. Every man shall bear his 
own burden. Every man shall 
give acco unt of himself to God. 
Gal. vi. 5. Rom. xiv. 12. 



230 AN ESSAY ON THE 

10. The Lord is not strict or 10. The Lord is of purer 
severe to mark what is done a- eyes than to behold iniquity: he 
miss; but is long sufteriug to us will by no means clear the 
ward, not willing that any guilty; but will bring every 
should perish, but that all should work into judgment, with eve- 
come to repentance, ry secret thing, whether it be 

good, or whether it be evil. 

As all those scripture doctrines are reconciled by the principle 
above mentioned, so are many obscure passages made clear, 
which upon the opposite system are either contradictory or unin- 
telligible. 

How innumerable are the instances, for example, in which we 
J6nd the apostles declaring that good works are so essential to our 
salvation, that without them we shall never be admitted through 
the gates into the city; and yet assuring us it is a dangerous delu- 
sion for any man to expect salvation hy the works of the law? — 
Now unless we take our stand upon some principle which will 
unite those scriptures, we may dispute forever, and come no near- 
er to a conclusion: each disputant will have many passages on his 
side, and while we neglect a reconciling principle, our controver- 
sy does nothing but afford a presumption to infidels, that the bible 
is at war with itself, and can never be brought to support any re- 
gular and consistent system of theology. 

Whence is it that St. Paul sometimes tells us, our salvation is 
of grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast; 
and at other times, exhorts us to work out our own salvation with 
fear and trembling? The solution is easy. If we attempt to work 
ourselves to the throne of justice, to merit salvation, or obtain it 
as a legal right, our works are an abomination in the sight of 
God; but if we, through divine assistance, work in order to ap- 
proach the throne of grace, made accessible by the blood of Jesus, 
our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. If works could take us 
to the throne of justice for deliverance, they would not obtain our 
salvation through grace, but of debt: those, on the contrary, which 
conduct us to the throne of grace, would not obtain our salvation 
as a debt, but as a voluntary act of divine compassion. For after 
we approach the throne of grace, God is not bound to receive us, 
as the Antinomian atonement supposes, only as he has boiind him- 
self by promise, from the free grace or benevolence of his nature. 

Thus the apostle argues: Now to him that worketh [in order 
to approach the throne of justice] is the reward not reckoned of 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 231 

grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not [to obtain a le- 
gal exoneration from the curse] but believeth [with the heart 
unto righteousness] on him that justifieth [or forgiveth] the un- 
godly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. His faith, work- 
ing by love, and including a proper submission to the divine go- 
vernment, is accounted for, or through an act of goodness is ac- 
cepted instead of perfect righteousness; therefore, the apostle 
concludes the reward is not of debt, but of grace: why so? because 
it was pure clemency or grace that accepted him upon the terms 
of believing. Had he come with a perfect righteousness either 
inherent or imputed, that righteousness alone would be a com- 
plete ground of his justification, and there would be no truth in 
saying either that faith was accounted for righteousness, or that it 
would be any act of grace to accept him in this way, because his 
spotless righteousness would give liim an unquestionable right to 
demand deliverance as a debt. Rom. iv. 4. 

The apostle says again, "Even so then at this present time also 
there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by 
grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. 
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise w ork is 
no more w ork. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which 
he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were 
blinded." Rom. xi. 5, 6. 

Here is a very convincing argument in support of the principle 
he had before advanced; namely, that there is no medium between 
looking for a free pardon from God's benignity and expecting to re* 
ceive salvation as a debt. He proves that those who deny this con- 
elusion are involved in palpable contradictions. For, says he, if 
this deliverance or salvation is bestowed by grace, or favour, then 
it is not received upon the ground of a legal righteousness as a 
debt, for this would prove that there was no benevolence or grace 
in the matter. Deny this, and you say grace is no more grace; that 
is, that it is grace and not grace — a favour and the mere payment 
of a debt, at the same time. But if it be of works, or a legal righte- 
ousness exactly answerable to every demand of the law, then is it 
no more of grace, because it is obtained upon principles of inflexi- 
ble justice, and there is no favour bestowed in only rendering that 
which is proportional to your legal right. Will you deny this, and 
gay salvation may be received upon the ground of this legal right- 
eousness, and yet be of grace? if so, you say work is no more work, 
that is, thai it is received upon the ground of a just or legal de- 
mand, and not received upon this ground at the same time. These 



^m AN ESSAY ON THE 

manifest contradictions are unavoidable upon any otlier princi^ 
|)le but that which is defended in these pages, and as St Paul 
pointed out these consequences in his epistle to the Romans, it is 
a little remarkable that his writings should be considered friend- 
ly to Antinomianism; more so, that this epistle should be so un- 
derstood; and more still that this very text should be thought 
a main pillar of predestinarian or imputed righteousness. 

He assures them that no man will receive salvation who expects 
it as debt, because God's method of saving sinners is in a way of 
mercy. Christ is his elect or chosen one, and whoever receives 
him by faith, and receives pardon in his name, is elected, chosen^ 
or approved of God in Christ, as a child of God and an heir ac- 
cording to the promise. What then? Israel hath not obtained that 
which he seeketh for; [because they sought it not by faith, but by 
the works of the lavr. Chap. ix. 32.] but the election hath obtain- 
ed it, [because they sought it not as a debt but'as humble suppli- 
ants; they received it as an act of grace, freely vouchsafed to all 
that will receive it in this way,] and the rest were blinded. 
That is, they were blinded with the vain delusion which the apos- 
tle is here labouring to remove, and this was the reason they re- 
ceived not that which they sought after. Had they abandoned 
the notion of a legal righteousness as the ground of their justifica- 
tion, and received pardon from the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, 
they too would have been a part of the election who hath obtained 
it; but they hardened themselves in prejudice against the truth, 
and of course were blinded; because he that runs away from 
the light must necessarily walk in darkness, and " this is the con- 
demnation that light is come into the world, and men love dark- 
ness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." 

Another scripture, worthy of particular notice, we find in Acts 
iv. 27. " For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou 
hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, 
and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do what- 
soever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." 
Again: " Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and 
fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have 
crucified and slain." Acts ii. 23. 

From these passages we learn the following particulars: 1. 
That God from his fore-knowledge of man's apostacy, had de- 
termined, according to his counsel or wisdom, that certain things 
shotild be done. 2. That the Lord Jesus was appointed to exe- 
cute his counsel or determination. 3. That the Jews and Gen- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. £53 

tiles, though their malice was over-ruled, to subserve the purpo* 
ses of the Divine wisdom, were very wicked in taking and cruci- 
fying the Redeemer. 

1» Our Heavenly Father determined, according to the counsel, 
or wise purpose of his own will, that all things should be done 
that were necessary for the redemption of mankind. 

2. The Son of God was anointed, or set apart to execute this 
gracious determination, and to do every thing that was necessary 
to its accomplishment. I hope no person will say the Jews were 
appointed to do whatsoever God^s hand and council determined &«- 
fore to be done. This were to suppose God commissioned them to 
perform the work of our redemption. If any shall declare that it 
was necessary for the Jews to crucify the Lord of Glory, they must 
suppose those sinners did at least a part of the work that was es- 
sential to the redemption and salvation of mankind, without whose 
assistance the work would not have been complete! God says he 
has no need of the sinful man: our Saviour says: No man taketh mj 
life from me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to 
take it again: while the prophet in his name declares, 1 have 
trodden the wine^press alone, and of the people there was none 
with me: I looked, and there was none to help; therefore mine own 
arm brought salvation unto me. Isaiah Ixiii. 3 , 5, 

3. It follows, that neither the treachery of Judas, nor the malice 
of Jews or Gentiles was necessary; but that their crime was enor- 
mous in arresting the Redeemer, and nailing him, by their wicked 
hands, to the cross. He was innocent, and did not deserve to suf- 
fer: and though he had a right to suffer, yet this right was in him- 
self alone, and no mortal had any more authority over his life 
than over the life of angels. 

Some pretend that the conduct of those men was unavoidable, 
because their actions were fixed by an immutable decree; but if 
God predestinated their wickedness, that decree resulted from his 
goodness or justice, or else it was Unjust: if from the former, the 
thing which the Jews did was perfectly just and goodj because it 
was the necessary effect of a decree that proceeded from those at- 
tributes. I hope nobody will say the decree arises from goodness^ 
and yet the thing is not good which it produces. If, on the con- 
trary, we say the decree was unjust, we charge God with malevo- 
lence, and contradict the most essential principles of revelation. 

I am aware of the sophistical evasion often used to conceal the 
force of this conclusion: It has been said, "Though God decrees 
all the actions of men, yet he does not decree the sinfulness of their 
Kk 



^34. AN ESSAY ON THE 

actions, which c^n^ists in the principle or motive that influences 
the agent.'' In answer to this, we would inquire whether it be 
possible for men to perform all their wicked actions from good 
motives, ol* not? li'itis possible, it plainly follows, that men 
might so perform them, and consequently, murder, adultery, theft 
^nd blasphemy might prevail as they now do, and yet there should 
be no sin in the world! if it is not possible, the inevitable conse- 
quence is, that there are many actions that cannot be performed 
by Hn intelligent being, but from bad motives, and of course God 
must predestinate the motives which influence them, in order to 
sfecure or bring to pass their wicked actions. 

Here stands an innocent man, we will suppose; who never did 
me an injury: I have no right to take away his life. Would it be 
possible for me intentionally to murder this man with a good mo- 
tive or not? I have a conviction that I ought not to kill him: to say I 
might have a good motive in doing what 1 feel I ought not to do, is 
a contradiction, and confounds the distinction between right and 
wrong. If I have a conviction that it is wrong, it is impossible for 
me to do it without intending to do wrong: the action cannot be 
done with the consent of my will, without arising from this wrong 
intention: consequently, if I should be moved to do it by the ir- 
resistible influence of a secret decree, the evil intention is no less 
predestinated than the action which arises from it. Other argu- 
ments might be offered against the pitiful sophistry here opposed^ 
but it is so futile and ridiculous that it deserves no farther inves- 
tigation. 

The plain sense^ of the passage above quoted (and the literal 
meaning of the original, according to Mr. Fletcher) is this: "for of 
a trujth, both Hero*! and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and 
the people of Israel, where gathered together against thy Holy 
Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed to do whatsoever thy hand 
and thy counsel determined before to be done. It was God's deter- 
minate counsel that Christ should die for mankind, and f^re-know- 
ing the wicked disposition of the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, 
he determined not to rescue the Saviour by miraculous power, but 
deliver him up to their fury. "Him, being delivered by the deter- 
minate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by 
wicked hands have crucified and slain." But if their wickedness 
was as much the object of his determinate counsel as the Savi- 
our's death, (which might have been accomplished by a flash of 
lightening or by some other means) what was the object of his 
fore-knowledge? and why was the knowledge distinguished from 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 205 

the determination, if they both mean the same thing? It is. evident 
bis determination related to what the Redeemer was to do and 
suffer for the salvation of mankind, and his fore-knowledge to the 
disposition of the Jews and Gentiles to take away his life.. He could 
have prevented tliem from crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ, be- 
cause he fore-knew their intentions; but he had determined that 
the Saviour should die, and therefore did not hinder them by su- 
perior power, but delivered him up to the vengeance of their wic- 
ked hands. 

Many other passages might be mentioned, and cleared up, by 
bringing them to a conformity with the leading principles of reve- 
lation, which have often been unjustly pressed into the service of 
reprobation; but as they have been examined by Mr Fletcher, and 
by other able hands, we will omit them at present, and confine 
ourselves to those which relate immediately to the subject of 
atonement. 

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law," says St. 
Paul, "being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every 
one thathangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13. 

From this it hath been concluded that Christ has removed the 
whole curse or penalty of the law from his elect, by enduring it in 
their place. But it is evident from the context, and from other 
passages, that the apostle's meaning in this text accords perfectly 
with our view of the subject. 

He labours in this epistle, as well as in that to the Romans, to 
convince the Jews, and those whom they had corrupted, that they 
can never be justified by a legal righteousness, but must submit to 
receive salvation through Christ in a way of mercy. "For as many 
as are of the works of the law," says he, (verse lo) "are under 
the curse: for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not 
in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." 
The law demanded universal obedience, made no provision for de- 
ficiency, and admitted of no forgiveness: consequently one trans- 
gression would sink the sinner beyond the possibility of deliverance 
upon principles of law. This was the curse: and it is evident that 
all who rejected the offers of mercy, and attempted to come out clear 
without receiving pardon, were under the curse, whieh they never 
could r«jnove. Christ has delivered us from this curse of the law 
because through his atonement sin may now be forgiven, which it 
could not be before he demonstrated God's righteousness, and thus 
removed the inexorable barrier, or curse, which cut off all access 
to mercy, and made the way to heaven impassable^ 



256 AN ESSAY ON THE 

But as it is said Christ was made a curse for us, many have sup- 
posed this can have no meaning, unless it mean that he became 
guilty* by imputation, and endured the whole penalty as a cri- 
minal in our place. The infliction of a curse, in scripture, has 
two meanings: 1. it means punishing a sinner according to what 
he deserves: 2, It means an act of God, whereby his hatred of sin 
is manifested. The former sense will be readily admitted; and 
that the latter is true, and is the only sense in which a curse was 
ever inflicted on the Lord Jesus, can be proved, i hope, to the sa- 
tisfaction of all that believe the scripture. 

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast 
done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every 
beast of the field: — and unto Adam he said; because thou hast 
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of 
which I commanded thee, saying, thou shall not eat of it; cursed 
is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the 
days of thy life: thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to 
thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field." — Gen, iii. 14, 17. 

Thus it appears that the ground, as well as the beasts of the 
earth and the fowls of heaven were cursed, not as criminals suf- 
fering the peaalty of the law; but they were brought under the ef- 
fects of sin, as so mJwiy standing monuments of God's displeasure 
against it. In like manner, but far more conspicuously, the Lord 
Jesus was made under the law, or submitted to suffer the dread- 
ful effects of sin, not as a criminal, but as a glorious monument of 
God's merciful kindness on the one hand and of his hatred 
against moral evil on the other. As God said to Adam "cursed is 
the ground for thy sake," so he may say to guilty creatures, "The^ 
innocent Redeemer has been made a curse for your sakes:" that is, 
'^he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" and 
therefore it may be very properly said, "he was made a curse for 
you, because it is written cursed is everyone that hangeth on a 
tree." 

The apostle John saith, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful 
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
eousness. 1 John i. 9. From this passage we learn, (1.) that God 
is faithful, or true to his gracious promise, that is, ha has pledged 
his goodness, to forgive us our sins: (2.) In consequence of redemp- 
tion 4his act of pardon is perfectly just also: that is, it violates the 

* See a quotation from Luther, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 237 

fight of none: not that justice demands it at the hand of God, so that 
lie cannot withhold it without being unjust, for if so, there would 
be neither goodness nor forgiveness in the matter; but this act of 
clemency is perfectly consistent with justice, through the mediation 
of Jesus Christ, who has "magnified the law and made it honour- 
able." We learn (3.) that Godis faithful and just to forgive us our 
sins, if we confess them: a clear proof that the penalty was not le- 
gally discharged by the death of Christ, otherwise we should be 
free upon principles of law, whether we made confession or not. 
This text affords incontrovertable evidence, that Christ died t» 
make it just for God to forgive sins upon certain conditions: if we 
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our ^ins, and 
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Had not the Redeemer in- 
terposed in our favour it would not have been just, that is, consis-r 
tent with the general rights of the creation, for either the justify- 
ing or sanctifying grace of God to be extended to his rebellious 
creatures: but it has become just, through the redemption that is 
in Jesus Christ, for the divine clemency to bestow upon penitent 
believing sinners, every thing that is necessary to their eternal 
happiness in heaven. 

Let us close this section by a few remarks upon that famous pas- 
sage of St. Paul to the Romans: "For all have sinned, and come 
short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare 
his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through 
the forbearance of God; to declare, I say at this time, his right- 
eousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of ^him which bcr 
lieveth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 23, 24i. 

To understand this important passage, three terms of it are to 
be explained: — coming short of the glory of God—justification— 
and propitiation. 

1. God is glorified, or his glorious attributes are displayed, by 
means of his moral law, as has been before proved: while all crea- 
tures continued upright, his glory shone forth like the sun in the 
inidst of heaven; but when the dark cloud of moral evil arose, the 
beams of divine glory were obstructed; the proof of God's spotless 
purity was obscured by those who sinned and came short of his 
glory: and some new method must now be taken to declare his 
righteousness, for the sake of those who continue obedient, and who 
have a right to such clear views oftruth as shall guard them against 
i^U danger: to secure this right God must dispel the cloud of evil 



S58 AN ESSAY ON THE 

by a demonstration of his righteousness: if no other method can be 
devised, this must be done by the damnation of every criminal; but 
if a Saviour can accomplish these ends of government in behalf of 
the guilty, then it will become just for mercy to forgive them, and 
restore to them the forfeited blessing of holiness and salvation. 
Let us consider 

1. The meaning of justification. This term, if I mistake not, ha? 
four meanings in scripture: (1.) it means to excuse or vindicate, in 
which sense God never justifies a sinner: He that justifieth the 
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are 
abomination to the Lord. Prov. xvii. 15. 

2. It simply signifies forgiveness, in which sense it is to be ta- 
ken in the passage under present consideration, and in many other. 
All that believe are justified from all things [that is from all their 
sins] from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. 
Acts xiii. 39. 

a. It is sometimes taken in an enlarged sense as including sane- 
tification or the renewing of our minds, as well as the pardon of 
our transgressions. "Whom he justified, them he also glorified: 
that is, whom he pardoned, renewed, and qualified for glory, them 
he actually glorified." Rom. viii. 38. 

4. It means to declare or acknowledge a person to be truly 
righteous. In proof of this, see Matt. xii. 37. James ii. 31, S*, 25. 

3 Consider we next the meaning of propitiation: propitious 
signifies favourable or kind: propitiousness, is favourableness, 
kindness. Propitiate, to induce to favour, to conciliate. Propi- 
tiation, the act of making propitious, the atonement, the offering 
by which propitiousness is obtained. — See WalkerH dictionary, 

God could not be kind or propitious to man in opposition to the 
principles of his government, and the general welfare, because 
such partiality is contrary to his perfections: his law must be mag- 
nified, and the righteousness or purity of his nature must be de- 
monstrated: this was done by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by this 
atonement he was propitiated, or influenced to extend favour, kind- 
ness or mercy to his fallen and guilty creatures. 

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." [they 
have obscured the evidence of his glorious attributes by introdu- 
cing moral evil.] Being justified [or forgiven] "freely by his grace 
through the redemption [or display of his glory] that is in Christ 
Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [to make it 
accord with the nature of God to show favour to all men who will 
receive it] throrgji faith in big blood, [being comnjissioned] to de- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 299 

-clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, [to 
prove clearly that he is righteous, and will never show mercy in a 
way that shall encourage sin, though the sentence of the law ia 
suspended] through the forbearance of Gk)d [whose goodness does 
every thing to save us that can be done without departing from 
the general welfare. To declare, I say, [or as the original means 
to demonstrate] at this time, his righteousness, that God might be 
just [that he might secure the rights of all his children, in his me> 
thod of showing mercy, or of becoming] the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus." 

There is not, perhaps, a more particular account of the design 
of our Saviour's coming, in all the scriptures, or a more copious 
elucidation of the interesting truths of salvation through Jesus 
Christ, than this passage affords us. But upon the AntinemiaR 
hypothesis, the subject is involved in darkness, and must be made 
to run thus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, [that 
is, to have all the sins of the elect imputed to him, and suffer the 
whole vengeance due to them] that God might be just in being 
bound by his justice, to render the^'us^ claim, which he has enabled 
and authorised his ransomed ones to demand as their right. 



SECTION X. 

The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemption, reconciled 
with the metaphors which represent it as a purchase. 

Some appear to imagine that Christ's death had merit enough, 
or that he wrought out righteousness enough for all the world; but 
that the particular part which is intended for me, or another sin- 
ner is withheld till we believe the gospel: when we do this it is 
made over to us; but if we live and die unbelievers, it is not made 
ever, and what becomes of it I have never been informed. But 
whether it be reserved for the benefit of the spirits in prison, or 
be applied to some other unknown use in heaven, or whatever 
else we may suppose, it removes not the difficulty respecting our 
need of forgiveness. 

For if Christ has discharged all penalties, and reserves his 
m^it or righteousness in this conditional way, does God fort^ive a 



!^60 AN ESSAY ON THE 

sinner before this merit is made over to him, or afterwards? If be» 
fore, he does not surely need this legal discharge by imputation^ 
because he has received a gracious discharge already; if not till 
afterwards, then he does not need pardon, because the legal atone* 
ment is made over to him, and nothing more is wanting for his 
complete justification. 

It is agreed, on all sides, that God pardons sinners in conse- 
quence of what Christ has done and suffered for them: it is equal" 
ly true, that he pardons none against whom there is no penal de- 
mand, because they do not need it: consequently Christ's death 
does not remove the penalty from any sinner, but only opens the 
way for divine mercy, to remove it by a gracious act of forgive- 
ness. 1. God pardons none but in consequence of the merits of 
Christ: 3. He pardons none but those who stand in need of it:— 
3. None stand in need of it against whom there is no penal de» 
mand; it therefore follows: 4. That the death of Christ does not 
remove the penalty, but only opens the w ay for an act of mercy to 
remove it. The opposite system, on the contrary, is founded on 
the principle that Christ died, not that sinners might obtain for- 
giveness, but that they might be raised above the want of it. 

And is this the view of redemption which we learn from the ora- 
cles of God.^ It is not. "For thus it is written, and thus it behoved 
Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory — for what? that re- 
pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations." Luke xxiv. 46. 

" The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and 
hanged on a tree: him hath God exalted with his right hand— for 
what? for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."— 
Acts V. 30. 

" In whom we have redemption through his blood — and what is 
that redemption? the /org^rcness of sins, according to the riches 
of his grace." Eph. i. 7. and Col. i. 14. 

"Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that 
through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins."— 
Acts xiii. 38. 

" We have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, 
Jesus the Son of God — and what inference doth this afford? Let 
us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may ob- 
tain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. iv. 14,16. 

How has he made this throne of grace accessible? "The Lord 
IS Well pleased for his righteousness sake: he will magnify the 
law and make it honourable. To declare, I say, at this time, his 



PLAN OF SALVATION. S6i 

fighteousness, that God might be just, and the jostifier of him 
Tvhich believeth in Jesis." — Isa. llii. 21. Rom. iii. 26, 

These plain scriptures give us a proper and just view of re* 
demption, and their evidence is not to be overturned by metaphor^ 
ical passages, which have been often abused and misapplied.— 
Let us notice some of the passages which have been thought 
friendly to the legal atonement and imputation, defended by our 
mistaken opposers. 

St. Paul saith, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who kne\t 
BO sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."—- 
2 Cor. V. 21. 

This must mean, either that Christ was really made a sinner, or 
that he was made a sacrifice for sin. If our sins were positively 
transferred from us to Christ, whereby he was properly eonstitut* 
ed a sinner, we were thereby really constituted innocent, and catt 
justly demand an exemption from all penalties. But the apostle 
explains himself in another place, and tells us, "This man, after 
he had offered one sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the right 
hand of God*"— Heb. x. 12. Sacrifice for sin signifies to make 
atonement or satisfaction for it: accordingly Christ offered satis- 
faction to God, as has been sufficiently explained already. 

Much stress has been laid upon the word redeem, which often 
occurs in the scriptures; but according to St. Paul, it sometimei 
means nothing more than opening a new and living way to a 
throne of grace: having redemption through his blood, says he, the 
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. 

It often means nothing more than deliverance from bondage, by 
the power of God: "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I 
am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of 
the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage^ and I will 
redeem you with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgment."— 
£xod. vi. 6. "But because the Lord loved you, and because he 
would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath 
the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed yott 
out ot the house of bond-men, from the hand of Pharoah, king of 
Egypt." — Deut. vii. 8. 

Thus it is plain that redemption, in these places, means deli- 
Tcrance, and so do those passages which speak of our being re- 
deemed from our vain conversation — from sin — from the cufse of 
the law — and that we wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption 
«/ our bodies. To suppose the word redeem, in these places, means 
a price literally paid down, as an equivalent for a thing pttr«lia8" 
L 1 



S62 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ed, is to suppose the Lord Jesus paid a price to oar vain conversa- 
tion, to our sins, to the curse of the law, and to the grave! 

Our redemption by Christ, I grant, is sometimes, in a metaphor- 
ical way, represented as a ;7Mrc/mse; St. Paul tells the Corinth- 
ians, ¥e are not your awn, for ye are bought with a price; and the 
apostle Peter says, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- 
deemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain 
conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with 
the precious blood of Christ, see that ye love one another with a 
pure heart fervently."—! Cor. vi. 20. 1 Pet. i. 18. 

These metaphors are sufficient, it may perhaps be thought, to 
support the whole weight of iVntinomian conclusions. It is evident, 
will they say, that Christ has bought his people, by paying the 
full price of justice which their sins demanded; therefore, if any 
soul should be lost for whom he shed his blood, he is unjustly de- 
frauded of his property. This conclusion, I grant, is incontro- 
vertible, if the principle on which it rests be really true, that Jesus 
Christ entered into a literal contract, and bought souls with his 
blood, just as a man purchases apiece of property with his money. 

Let us admit for a moment, that such scriptures are to be taken 
in the sense of a literal contract: the conclusion very naturallv fol- 
lows, that Jesus Christ bought a certain number of souls, and 
paid such a price as he ought in justice to pay, in order to be le^ 
gaily entitled to the property he had purchased; if he died for a 
part of mankind, that part are his forever; if he died for all, then 
not an individual of the human race can be taken from him with- 
out a violation of justice. Meantime, it remains for us to inquire 
from w hom did he buy those souls, and what price did he pay.'* As 
to the price, St. Peter, tells it was not silver or gold, but the pre- 
cious blood of Christ. — I Pet. i. 18, 1». 

But who was the other party in this contract, that disposed of 
such a number of souls, and received a certain quantity of blood 
in payment, — such a quantity as was equivalent to the value of 
his property.^ Did our Holy Redeemer pay his blood to the devil, 
to the curse of the law, to our vain conversation, or to the graver 
Or did he purchase us from the Father? If so, the Father has no 
more right in us now, because he has sold us, and received the 
price of justice^ equivalant to the property disposed of! And if we 
say he bought us for the Father, it seems not a little puzzling to 
ascertain how he lost his original right in us. Had he sold us on 
some former occasion, or did the devil claim us as his property by 
right of war? These questions may perhaps be said to be replete 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^63 

with blasphemy; but I must appeal to common sense, and ask the 
intelligent reader, iftliey do not naturally arise from the principle 
that Jesus Christ actually bought the souls of men, and paid 
down a price for them, proportional to their value, according to 
the just principles of a literal contract? 

An Antinomian, I grant, can point to 1 Cor. vi. 20. and say, "The 
word of God i« plain and indisputable, that ye are bought with a 
price.^^ With equal propriety and strength of argument, a Papist 
may point to John vi. 53. and tell us, "the word of God is plain 
beyond all contradiction, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man^ 
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you^ When metaphors or 
comparisons are drawn from the practice of men in buying and 
selling, and the blood of Jesus is called a price by which we are 
purchased, the whole is to be taken, it seems, in a proper literal 
sense; but when this same blood is represented by another figure, 
and the Saviour declares, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is 
drink indeed, — he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me, and I in him — the whole is to be understood me- 
taphorically. For my part I cannot help thinking the papistical 
argument is as good as the Aniinomian, and that they are twin- 
sisters that must stand or fall together. 

"What loads of heterodoxy," says Mr. Fletcher, "have degra- 
ded parables brought into the church! and how successfully has 
error carried on her trade, by dealing in figurative expressions, ta- 
ken in a literal sense!" 

"This is my body," says Christ: "Therefore bread is flesh," saya 
the papist, and transubstantiation is true." "These dry bones are 
the house of Israel, says the Lord." Therefore Calvinism is true, 
gay my objectors, and we can do no more towards our conversion, 
than dry bones towards their resurrection. Lost sinners are repre- 
sented in the gospel as a lost piece of silver: therefore, says the 
author of Pietas Oxoniensis, they can no more seek God, than the 
piece could seek the woman who had lost it. — Christ is the Son of 
God, says St. Peter: Therefore, says Arius, he is not co-eternal 
with the Father, for I am not so old as my parents. — Vol. i. page 
224<. 

Again: "If none go to hell but goats, and none to heaven but 
sheep, where shall the chickens go! Where the wolves in shceps 
clothing? And in what limbus of heaven or hell shall we put that 
fox Herod, the dogs who return to their vomit, and the swine, be- 
fore whom we must not cast our pearls? Are they all species of 
goats, or some particular kind of sheep? 



SU AN ESSAY ON THE 

<'My difficulties increase. The church is called a dove, an j 
Ephraim a silly dove. Shall the silly dove be admitted among the 
sheep? Her case seems rather doubtful. The hair of the spouse in 
ihe Canticles is likewise said to be like a flock of goats, and 
Christ's shepherds are represented as feeding kids, or young goats 
beside their tents. I wonder if those young goats, become young 
sheep, or if they were all doomed to continue reprobates? But 
what puzzles me most, is, that the Babylonians are in the same 
verse compared to lambs, rams and goats: were they mongrel 
elect, or mongrel reprobates, or some of Elisha Cole's ^spiritual 
monsters, in whom the spirit had begotten a lump of dead flesh?" 
J^letcher^s Checks, vol. i. page 22%, 227. 

Mr. Fletcher takes the proper method to refute a hypothetical 
absurdity, by setting it before the reader in different views, that 
he may view it on all sides, and perceive its naked inconsistency. 
The iTiends of" degraded parables" will doubtless complain, that 
©ur running to other passages, and comparing them together, is 
not to be tolerated, because it is bringing the scriptures to our car- 
nal reason, and the almost magical power of our metaphysical 
distinctions, as one of Mr. Fletcher's opponents very wittily ob- 
served, when he found himself unable to avoid the strong argu^ 
ments which besieged him, and which he could scarcely notice 
with any degree of patience. 

I must take the liberty, however, to ask a few more questions 
upon the subject of buying and selling. When the wise virgins said 
to the foolish, ^'go ye rather to them that sellsiiidbuy for yourselves,'' 
did they really mean that men are to purchase their own salvation, 
and that the other virgins were fools for thinking it might be had 
by begging or asking for? When Soloman said, "Buy the truth 
and sell it not," did he mean that some person has a store house of 
truth, to whom we must lay down a price exactly equal to its va- 
lue? 

Qur Saviour tells us, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a 
vierchant-man (whose chief business is to buy and sell) seeking 
goodly pearls: who when he had found one pearl of great price^ 
went and sold all that he had and bought it,^^ — Matt. xiii. 44, 45. 

Would he have us understand by this parable, that every man 
must purchase salvation for himself, and give a great price for it? 
True, says an antinomian, but he furnishes the purchase-money 
himself, and every elect soul buys it in the name of his surety. 

But the surety himself, who says "I am he that was dead, and 
behold, I am alive forevermore, (Rev. i. 18.) invites us to come and 



FLAN OF SALVATION. 26^ 

purchase it of him: I counsel thee, says he, (Rev.iii. i8,)''io buy of 
me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, that thou mayest be 
clothed." 

Are we to learn from this, that he, like a merchant-man, to 
^hom he compares his kingdom, has bought righteousness and 
salvation by the gross, and proposes to retail it to us, at proper 
retail prices, counselling every one to come and buy for himself? Or 
are we to be told from the chair of dictatorial infallibility, that all 
these and such like scriptures, are to be considered as metaphors 
and parables, while those only which relate to redemption are to be 
taken in a literal sense? By what rule shall we understand the 
metaphors of scripture? Shall we compare spiritual things with 
spiritual, as the apostle directs us, or must we keep " the profane 
eye of human reason" down to the standard of popish and antino- 
mian orthodoxy? 

Papists have invented an hypothesis that bread and wine are a 
god; antinomians have invented another, that Jesus Christ took 
the sins of the elect upon him, and has discharged all claims of jus- 
tice against them: neither of them are willing that one figure of 
scripture relating to their favourite scheme, should be explained by 
comparing it with other passages where the same term is used; but 
every passage must be understood in the sense most favourable to 
their respective systems, as the only standard of explanation. 

The papists reason very consequentially upon this subject: if 
every man should be allowed to use his own reason, they say, eve- 
ry man must then be allowed to have his own opinion, and there 
will be no rule by which the truq divinity and orthodoxy can be as- 
certained. 

Heresy will abound, and there will be np short and easy rule by 
which to convince heretics of their delusions. A criterion must be 
had, and the only decisive and sure one is that of infallibility, 
continued from age to age in St. Peter's chair at Rome. Here is 
the grand asylum where we may run and be safe from all danger 
of heresy! Meantime we must be very cautious not to indulge our 
heretical curiosity in asking, "what reason we have to believe his 
holiness is infallible?"-r-but we must learn to subdue our profane 
and rebellious reason, and obediently submit to the maternal in- 
structions of our holy mother. They will excuse my mentioning 
these particulars; for what 1 have said is nothing more than the 
account which they themselves have given of the matter.* 

* See a modern performance of a popish doctor of Hexham, en- 
titled "Reflections on the spirit of religious controversy," iitc. page 



266 AN ESSAY ON THE 

To conclude: when the blood of Jesus Christ is represented as a 
fountain in which we are to wash our robes and make them white, 
the meaning of it, according to the well known doctrines of reve- 
lation, is, that we are indebted to his sufferings and death for re- 
newing grace or sanctification. When it is said we must eat his 
flesh, and drink his blood, we understand by this figure, that we are 
to live a spiritual life by faith in the Son of God: as we must eat 
and drink in order to live naturally, so we must exercise faith itt 
the merits of Christ to live spiritually. "The life which I now 
live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who Jove* 
me, and gave himself for me." — Gal. ii. 20. 

In like manner when his blood is called a price, or when we are 
told he gave his life a ransom for many, the meaning is, that we 
were held under the bondage of sin, from which there was no es*- 
caping, till his death made the throne of grace accessible: he res- 
cued sinners from despair, and opened a door of hope and mercy 
for the world, by his bloody passion on the cross: hence, by a figure 
common among men, we are said to be ransomed, redeemed, or 
bought with the price of blood. Such expressions are not applied 
to literal contracts or pecuniary transactions, and I am persuaded 
the world would never have heard of such an application of them^ 
had not such "degraded parables" been found convenient to the 
support of a tottering hypothesis, that must be concealed under 
cover of distorted allegories to be kppt in any tolerable counte» 
lianqe in the world. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 267 

CHAPTER IV. 

AK EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS COKN£CTED 
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION. 



SECTION I. 

Of the full display of Eternal Justice, 

Objection.— "Justice is an essential and eternal attribute of 
God. Its demands must therefore be fully and entirely satisfied; 
otherwise the Almighty must relinquish a part of his justice, and 
thereby abandon that which is essential to his nature, and con- 
sequently cease to be God." Answer: 

1. Benevolence is an eternal attribute of God, equally essential 
to his nature; it must therefore be fully and entirely displayed: 
Justice forbids the exercise of benevolence, or it does not; if it 
does not, then Grod never relinquishes any part of his justice by 
the exercise of kindness and mercy: if it does, then God to be 
just must relinquish the exercise of benevolence, seeing justice 
forbids it: therefore he must abandon that which is essential to 
his nature, and consequently cease to be God. 

2. The objection supposes God's eternal justice binds himself, 
and that where there is no right of demand in another, there is 
still an obligation on him, which he cannot depart from without 
being unjust: for supposing the general welfare to be secured 
through the Redeemer, for sinners to be pardoned, without the 
whole penalty being inflicted on themselves or any other person; 
if God be still bound to execute vengeance to the uttermost, the 
inevitable consequence is, that he must give up the prerogative of 
exercising clemency, (a prerogative which is possessed even by 
an earthly ruler,) in order to secure his great and eternal justice. 

3. If God is bound under obligation, when there is no other per- 
son's right involved, it follows that justice binds him, where every 
other being is left free: for who w ill presume to say that any man 
or angel is bound in justice, in any single case, but where there is 
SL right of demand in another? And if men and angels are not 
thus bound, and yet their Eternal Maker is, does it not follow 
that justice binds the Almighty, and denies him the liberty and 
authority which it allows to the meanest of his creatures? 



2&n AN ESSAY OlSr THE 

4. If it be granted, that God is not bound to panish sinners, ex* 
cepting where the omission of it would affect the rights of others, 
it is undeniable that, excepting such cases, he has a right to par- 
don sinners, and never to inflict the penalty which they had incurred. 
And if we call this leaving his justice unsatisfied, or departing 
from it, we say God departs from his justice, and leaves it unsa- 
tisfied, by doing what he has a right to do. 

5. Justice is fully displayed, and entirely satisfied, the moment 
universal right is secured: This was done by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, in consequence of which a gracious pardon is granted to 
sinners. But God, you say, had a right to punish them, and this 
right must be satisfied. The answer is easy: the moment divine 
goodness grants pardon, God's individual right to punish is satis- 
tied by^ his benevolence, the very essence of which consists in 
voluntarily giving up a right in favour of another. Deny this, and 
you say at once, that benevolence has no place in the divine na-* 
ture, and that justice is never satisfied for God to bestow a favour 
until he is bound to do it, and then it is no favour, but the mere 
discharge of an obligation. 

6. If we deny that benevolence is meritorious to the satisfac- 
tion of justice, we must suppose that punishment is the only thing 
which satisfies it; but I hope it can be made appear, that the only 
thing in punishment which satisfies justice, is its tendency to se- 
cure the rights of others, aud when it has no such tendency, jus- 
tice is not satisfied with it. 

Suppose, for example, that the devil and his angels had been 
punished in heaven as much as they are punished in hell, but had 
been continued in their native region^ with, full power to disturb 
the innocent and injure them, or violate their rights through eter- 
nity; would justice be satisfied merely with their being punished 
when that punishment was not inflicted in a manner that should 
secure the rights of others.^ No; if they were made to endure the 
full degree of torment which their iniquities deserved, justice 
would not be satisfied with it a tittle farther than it had a tenden- 
cy to secure the general welfare; and if it had no such tendency 
justice would remain as unsatisfied as if the governor had not 
punished the criminals at all: because if he punished them in a 
way that answered no good end, he had no regard to the rights or 
the welfare of others, and therefore there would be neither jus- 
tice nor benevolence in the matter. Consequently the security of 
general happiness and universal right, is the only thing which 
satisfies justice, and it is never satisfied tvich punishment, but so 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 2B9 

far as it has a tendency to promote this end. To deny this, is to say 
justice is satisfied that the rights of the innocent should not be se- 
cured, and that mere punishment satisfies it, without any regard to 
the tendency or end of that punishment. 

7. If you admit that benevolence, or a benevolent regard to the 
general welfare, which leads to every proper step to secure it, is 
that which satisfies justice, the conclusion is secured, that as soon 
as those ends are accomplished by the goodness of God, divine 
justice is fully satisfied, even though there should be ten thousand 
penalties which have never been inflicted, and never will be. But 
if you deny this doctrine, you must of necessity maintain that mere 
punishment, abstracted from its tendency to secure the public wel- 
fare, is essential to the full display of divine justice. 

If this attribute cannot appear to full advantage, by merely se- 
curing universal right and happiness, but in addition to that, pun- 
ishment is necessary in itself, to exhibit the full glory thereof, the 
consequence is, that before sin entered into the creation this at- 
tribute was not satisfied, or not fully displayed, seeing nothing 
more was done than the security of universal right, and no punish- 
ment existed to display and exalt this great perfection. Therefore, 
God must either punish the innocent, or force them into sin by his 
decree, in order fully to satisfy and show forth his glorious justice! 
Thus we see how the various parts of the predestinariau system 
are connected together, and how naturally they rise out of the le- 
gal atonement, which some inconsistent Arminians vainly attempt 
to reconcile with the benevolent doctrines of Christianity. 

If justice was fully exercised and exalted originally, by the se- 
curity of universal right, it is still fully exercised and exalted in 
securing the same end, otherwise we say a change has taken place 
in its nature; if it was not, then justice required the introduction 
of misery, in order to display itself effectually, and of course this 
attribute demanded that the innocent should be punished, or that 
they should become guilty, in order that they might deserve pun-* 
ishment, and thus afford the Creator an opportunity to glorify hli 
justice, and unfold the secrets of his sovereign will! 

If the angels had continued to persevere in righteousness, and tQ 
refuse to subserve the divine perfections by plunging themselves 
into sin, the Almighty, it should seem, to display his eternal jus* 
tice, must secretly contrive their apostacy by an absolute decree, 
while he is openly warning them against it, with every appear- 
ance of truth and sincerity! 
Mm 



^iro AN ESSAY ON THE 

If a man should cruelly beat his children ^hen innocent, oT 
drench them with intoxicating liquors, in order to punish them se- 
verely for being drunkards, would not this be an admirable way 
of showing his justice? And would it mend the matter for him to 
warn them against intoxication, and make great professions of ab- 
horrence against it, and at the same time to contrive some secret 
way of leading them into drunkenness in order to punish them, 
without letting them know the depth of his secret w ill or dissim- 
ulation? or would his august perfection be fully unfolded by impu- 
ting drunkenness to them, when they had never been guilty of it? 
It is certainly right at all times for justice to display itself ful- 
ly and perfectly, the contrary of which is an evident contradiction: 
if, therefore, the infliction of penalties be essential to its full man- 
ifestation, it was right for them to be inflicted while all creatures 
remained in a state of innocence, or for the creatures to be led in- 
to sin, or have sin imputed to them, that they might be proper sub- 
jects of punishment. 

This reminds one of the wonderful display of justice manifested 
by the popish inquisitors: "When those w ho stood mute are call- 
ed for re-examination, if they continue silent, such tortures are 
ordered as will either make them speak, or kill them; a string of 
accusations is brought against them, to which they are obliged to 
stnswer extempore, no time being given even to put their answer 
into proper method. ■ ., 

r "After they have verbally answered, pen, ink and paper are 
given them, in order to produce a written answer, which it is re- 
quired shall in every degree coincide with the verbal answer. If 
the verbal and the written answer difler, the prisoners are charged 
with prevarication, if one contains more than the other, with wish- 
ing to conceal certain circumstances; if they both agree, they are 
accused with premeditated artifice. 

"Another artifice used by the inquisitors is this: If a prisoner 
has too much resolution to accuse himself, and too much sense to 
be ensnared by their sophistry, they proceed thus: a copy of an 
indictment against the prisoner is given him, in which, among ma- 
ny trivial accusations, he is charged with the most enormous crimes, 
of which human nature is capable. This, of course, rouses his 
temper, and he exclaims against such falsities. He is then asked 
which of the crimes he can deny? He naturally singles out the 
most atrocious, and begins to express his abhorrence of them, 
when the indictment being snatched out of his hand, the president 
says, 'By your denying only those crimes which you mention, you 



PLAN OF SALVATION. S^it 

implicitly confess the rest, and we shall therefore proceed accord- 
ingly.' 

"The inquisitors made a ridiculous aifectation of equity, by pre- 
tending that the prisoner may be indulged with a counsellor, if he 
chooses to demand one. Such a request is sometimes made, and a 
counsellor appointed, but upon these occasions as the trial itself 
is a mockery of justice, so the counsellor is a mere cypher; for he 
is not permitted to say any thing that might offend the inquisitor, 
or to advance a syllable that might beneiit the prisoner."* 

Now if tlie perfect display of justice consists in punishing those 
as criminals who are innocent; if it consists in forcing or enticing 
them into wrong conduct in order to punish them: or in falsely 
imputing crimes to them which they never committed; the Ro- 
man inquisitors exhibited the most perfect display of justice that 
the world has ever yet beheld. But if none of those things are es- 
sential to its operations, it is obvious as the beams of day-light, 
that God could display his righteousness without the help of ei- 
ther sin or misery; and that penal torments were never necessary 
till the voluntary wickedness of angels broke in upon the harmony 
of heaven and called forth the arm of justice to defend the injured 
rights of the innocent, by executing the righteous sentence of the 
law upon those malevolent and cruel invaders. 

It is very evident that all creatures, while they continue just, 
will continue happy; and misery had no place-in the creatioH 
while justice was universally maintained. But no sooner is injus- 
tice introduced than it produces misery, as its natural offspring. 
The rights of the innocent are violated, and divine justice, ever 
watchful to guard and secure them, is now under the necessity of 
doing it by inflicting misery on the rebels. Not that it is essential 
to this attribute to inflict punishments ; for it never did inflict them 
before, and never would have done it, had not the introduction of 
injustice made it indispensably necessary for the vindication of 
the Divine character and the defence of the public welfare. 

It is for the sake of maintaining happiness, and for nothing else, 
that misery is ever inflicted by the influence of any righteous 
principle. To say justice inflicts punishment because it essentially 
delights in the infliction of it, is to say that justice and unrelenting 
malice are precisely the same thing. 

What is malice but a diabolical passion which disposes a per- 
son without any regard to the security of general happiness to in- 



* See the Biographical and Marty rological Dictionary, page 
291 and 293. 



^3 AN ESSAY ON THE 

fliet torment for its own sake, and to feast upon the groans ef the 
miserable? This odious venom arises from the profoundest depths 
of hell, and it is only to obstruct the influence of such destructive 
principles, and to prevent others from falling into them, that the 
loving Parent of all creatures ever inflicted punishments on either 
angels or men. 

Though it be granted then, that justice is an eternal attribute 
of God, yet we can never be persuaded that the existence of misery 
was essential to the satisfaction or perfect exercise of this princi- 
ple, because it is so far from being in league with misery, that they 
are at perpetual opposition with each other; and it is to prevent 
the enlargement of wretchedness that justice is executed by the 
great Ruler of the heavens, or by any righteous and good governor 
in this world. 

Let us look back to the blooming period of universal harmony, 
when all creatures in existence were both innocent and holy: let 
us consider the scenes of undisturbed tranquillity which gladden- 
ed the regions of the blessed, prior to the ravages of sin. Did not 
justice demand of all creatures to continue in the way of perfect 
obedience? and did it not demand of their Maker not to punish 
them as rebels while they were perfectly innocent? If we say no, 
we say it does not demand obedience to God, and that it does not 
protect the innocent: if we say yes, it follows that justice, far front 
being the original author of misery, absolutely demanded that mis- 
ery should never be introduced. And had justice been maintained 
by all creatures, as it was by their Creator, it is evident that mis- 
cry the native offspring of moral evil, would never to this moment 
liave existed in the creation of God. Consequently the moment 
misery was introduced, by one creature injuring another, justice 
was violated; and therefore misery is so far from being essential to 
the exercise of this righteous attribute, th^t it is essential to the 
exercise of injustice, which is a sworn enemy to every perfection of 
the Deity, 

But these principles, I fear, have sometimes been jupibled to- 
gether in dreadful confusion. Have we indulged a confused notion, 
that no misery was ever produced till it was inflicted by the hand 
of God on account of sin? But what is sin then? Is it a perfectly 
harmless thing that injures no being in any part of the creation? 
Did God give his creatures a code of moral laws which had no re- 
lation to their happiness or misery? so that, had he let them alone, 
they would all have been as happy in breaking as in keeping 
th^m? If so, there was no benevolence in giving the law, because 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 273 

the operation of it was not essential to the happiness of a single 
individual, which it could not be, if they could be as happy with- 
out keeping the law as with it. And how were the rights and pri- 
vileges of others violated by sin, if they were in no degree affected 
by it? If the first wickedness produced no misery, it did no harm to 
any one, and how then can it be denominated a very dreadful 
evil? 

Perhaps it will be said God has a right to command his crea- 
tures as he pleases, and the dreadful evil of sin consisted merely 
and solely in its being opposed to the divine authority. But if it 
was a matter purely indifferent what kind of laws God gave to his 
creatures, it was equally indifferent whether he gave them any 
laws or no; because, if one kind had no more tendency to promote 
their happiness and guard them against misery than another, it 
is evident that all kinds were equally frivolous. But if so, there 
was no wisdom in the law-giver, unless wisdom consists in pre- 
feringone set of means to another when they are all alike indif- 
ferent to the end. In such indifferent matters the most egregious 
iblly conld choose as well as wisdom. 

If it be granted that God had a wise end in view, when he first 
gave laws to his moral creatures, I would be glad to know what 
end he had in view? Was it to promote their happiness? If not, 
there was no henevolence in the matter, whatever his end might 
be: and if it was to promote their happiness, then there was a pos- 
sibility for it to be destroyed by their own conduct, otherwise you 
say he gave a law to promote their happiness which had no ten- 
dency to that end; which it could not have if a breach of it had no 
more effect upon their enjoyments than the most cordial obedi- 
ence. 

Did he give a law to secure all right and prevent his creatures 
from injuring each other? If not, he had no regard to moral jus- 
tice in giving it, whatever else he had in view; if he did, then it 
was possible for his creatures to injure each other, or else you say 
he gave a law to prevent that which was impossible. 

For what were the devils "cast into hell, and reserved in chains 
of darkness unto the judgment of the great day," if they never 
did any harm? If misery was never produced till it was inflicted 
by the hand of God, it is certain their sin never injured them- 
selves or others, and never would have hindered any creature 
from being as happy as it would if sin had never entered into the 
universe. 



274; A!V ESSAY ON THE 

If we admit this hypothesis, we must helieve that right anfl 
wrong have no relation to happiness and misery; because it 
supposes, had God withheld his hand, and not inflicted misery on 
his creatures, they might have broken his laws through all heaven 
and earth to the present hour, without ever injuring themselves or 
others, or diminishing their happiness in the least degree. And 
moreover, if right and wrong have no relation to misery, then it 
very evidently follows that when God inflicted punishment on the 
fallen angels, he did neither right nor wrong: thus all moral dis-, 
tiuctions are confounded, all kinds of conduct are made alike 
indifferent, and we leap into the profound regions of atheism. 

If we say misery did not originally result from that conduct, 
which was perfectly indifferent, it must of necessity have arisen ei- 
ther from doing ivrong or from doing right; if the former, the point 
is gained for which 1 contend: if the latter, then it demonstrably 
follows that if all creatures, and the Creator with them, had per- 
petually done wrong, misery would never have originated, and 
perfect felicity would have been universal to the present hour. 

Did I not fear that any farther pursuit of this point would in- 
sult the reader's understanding, additional arguments should be 
produced; but presuming what has been already said will be deem- 
ed sufficient, I proceed only to mention the conclusions which fol- 
low. 

The first is, that when all creatures were innocent and upright, 
no one deserved to be punished, and justice was so far from re- 
quiring it, that it required the contrary: of course while moral 
principles prevailed, misery was excluded from God's universal 
dominion. 

Secondly, it follows that misery was introduced by injustice, and 
unless we say God is unjust, we are constrained to admit the con- 
elusion, that rebellious creatures brought misery on themselves, 
and injured others, not by any special appointment of God, but as 
the natura* consequence of moral evil. 

Thirdly, by thus unjustly introducing misery, they forfeited 
their native right to happiness, and could no longer appeal to jus- 
tice for an exemption from penal torments, as innocent creatures 
can, because they deserved to suffer for violating the rights of 
others, and flying in the face of that goodness and justice which 
were harmoniously exercised to maintain the happiness of all. 

Fourthly, the righteous Governor of his creatures, who hitherto 
guarded their happiness by presenting his truth to their understand- 
ing, and thus morally drawing them to obedience, was now eon- 



PLAN OP SALVATION, 275 

strained to do it by arresting these invaders, and manifesting his 
abhorrence of their crimes. His justice now demands that punish' 
ments be inflicted on the rebels, not for the sake of punishing, but 
for the sake of his creatures in general who have not transgressed, 
and whose native liberty and happiness must and ought to be de- 
fended. 

Fifthly, as justice delights, not in the infliction of misery, but 
in the security of good government and general happiness, if these 
ends can be by any means accomplished without delivering the re- 
bels over to the punishment they deserve, justice will be satisfied 
for them to receive a gracious pardon, and enjoy the blessings of 
their Maker's government again. 

Sixthly, the Lord Jesus, in his heavenly plan of redemption, 
satisfied justice, not by becoming a criminal and suffering as such, 
for nothing but injustice could be satisfied with this; not by giving 
the criminals an absolute deliverance from the penalty whether 
they repented or not; nor yet by suff*ering all that was due to sini; 
but by exhibiting the great evil of sin, and demonstrating God's 
abhorrence of it, as stated in the foregoing chapters. 



SECTION IL 

The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption necessary, 

" If sin had never entered into the world, it may be said, the 
goodness of God in redemption would never have appeared, and 
neither his justice against sin, nor his mercy to sinners could have 
possibly been manifested; therefore the nature of God essentially 
demanded the introduction of moral evil." Answer: 

1. It is true, before sin entered into the creation, it was impos- 
sible for either justice or goodness to be manifested to sinners, be- 
cause there were no such creatures in being; but if those attributes 
were exercised in behalf of the upright, and afforded them all the 
happiness of which their natures were capable, what more was ne- 
cessary? Must God make sinners, that he may have the opportu- 
nity of showing his mercy to them? If a physician should break 
his neighbour's arm, in order to show his skill in curing it; or 
drench his children with strong drink to display his goodness in 



5J76 AN ESSAY ON THE 

pardoning them for the crime of drunkenness, there would be nei- 
ther justice nor mercy in such an action. It would result from a 
combination of cruelty and pride; for it could not arise from a re- 
gard to another's happiness, but merely to make a selfish and hy- 
pocritical display of his benevolence at their expense. If he was 
good, why did he cot rejoice to maintain their happiness instead 
of obstructing it? and if he was just, why did he infiict misery on 
others which they did not deserve? or charge them with the crim- 
inality of his own wrong conduct? There cannot be a more palpa- 
ble contradiction in nature than to say it was good and just for God 
to forbid sin, and yet that his goodness and justice required it, in 
order to display themselves! that his attributes required of his 
creatures, not to sin, and at the same time required that they 
should sin! 

2. The objection supposes that it is merely for his own sake, 
and not for the sake of his creatures, that God displays his attri- 
butes. For if goodness and justice supported and guarded innocent 
creatures in a state of perfect happiness, before the introduction 
of moral evil, then nothing more was necessary to be done for their 
sake, because they were already in possession of perfect and un- 
obstructed happiness. For whose sake then did the Creator >vish 
to display his attributes in any other way? Not for the sake of 
sinners, for there were none in being. Not for the sake of enlarg- 
ing the happiness of his creatures, for I presume, had they con- 
tinued upright, their obedience would, through divine beneficence, 
have regularly enlarged it, without the help of wickedness. To 
deny this is to say that sin can furnish the creatures of God with 
greater degrees of felicity than his goodness could possibly do 
without its assistance. And if it was really so necessary for the 
well being of the creation, what principle in the Deity influenced 
him to forbid it, and to guapd his creatui*es against the commis- 
sion of it, by every moral motive that his truth could communi- 
cate to their understandings? Did this proceed from either justice 
or benevolence? if so, it is just and good to discourage moral crea- 
tures in the pursuit of that which is essential to the perfection of 
their happiness, or to hinder them from being so happy as they 
might be. And besides, if sin was essential to the display of God's 
glory, when he forbid it, was this done to prevent the display of 
his glory? or did he really wish them to violate his laws, and only 
pretended to be pure and holy, while he secretly decreed and delight- 
ed in their rebellion and apostacy? I hope the reader will reject 
such aiisurdities, and will acknowledge that sin was never neces- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 277 

sary to the production of happiness, but that it is the parent of 
misery, hateful to God and to all his holy angels. 

<'What havoc hast thou made, foul monster, sin! 

Greatest and first of ills! the fruitful parent 

Of woes of all dimensions! but for thee 

Sorrow had never been. 

Accursed thing! O where shall fancy find 

A proper name to call thee by expressive 

Of all thy horrors? pregnant womb of ills! 

Of temper so transcendently malign, 

That toads and serpents of most deadly kind 

Compared to thee are harmless. Sickness 

Of every size and symptom, racking pains. 

And bluest plagues are thine! See how the fiend 

Profusely scatters the contagion round! 

Whilst deep-mouth'd slaughter bellowing at her heels. 

Wades deep in blood new spilt; yet for to-morrow 

Shapes out new work of great uncommon daring 

And inly pines till the dread blow is struck." 

Blair. 

If it be granted that the divine attributes were sufficiently dis- 
played, before the introduction of evil, for the support and enlarge- 
ment of the creature's capacity and happiness, what other or bet- 
ter ends could be accomplished by manifesting them in any other 
way.P And even supposing the utmost extent of them were not then 
fully known, there was no need of any more while all creatures 
continued holy and happy, because while this state of things re- 
mained the ends were accomplished for which they ever were dis- 
played at all. 

Has God ever made knoMn his wisdom and power to creatures 
in all their extent, so that he knows nothing and can do nothing 
but what he has fully and entirely manifested? I presume none will 
be disposed to affirm this: and if he be not ambitious to display the 
whole extent of his wisdom and power, but only manifests them so 
far as is necessary for the benefit of his creatures, what ground is 
there for the vain presumption that he was not satisfied with that 
manifestation of his glory which innocent creatures in heaven be- 
held, but was ambitious to display himself in some other way, wheiL 
it was not necessary to the felicity of any creature in being? If he 
were disposed to do more than wa* necessary for the perfect feli- 
N n 



278 AN ESSAY ON THE 

city of his creatures, and the security of their rights, what benig- 
nity or justice wouhl appear in such a disposition? Alas! it is re- 
presenting our great Creator as being governed by a selfish princi- 
ple, and delighting to make some wonderful display of himself, 
merely for his own gratification, as if God, like fallen man, had a 
disposition to do certain things for no other end but to gain ap- 
plause! 

Is it any pleasure to the Alniighty that we are righteous? 
or did he bring us into being because he needed us, and was con- 
cerned merely to let others see how glorious he is in himself? 
Surely his essential goodness was the cause of our existence, and 
had it not been for this attribute, which delights in the communi- 
cation of happiness, 1 presume that men and angels would have 
never been. His other attributes are exercised in subserviency to 
this, and he displays himself to his intelligent creatures, so far on- 
ly as is necessary to the felicity and perfection of their nature. 
But what evidence have we that he ever has fully manifested the 
whole extent of his perfections to any creature? "Hell is naked 
before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out 
the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon no- 
thing. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his 
cloud upon it. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished 
at his reproof. He divideth the sea by his power, and by his spirit 
he hath garnished the heavens. Lo, tbese are parts of his ways; 
but how little a portion is heard of him?" — Job xxvi. 6, &c. 

If then he has made known but a little portion of his nature to 
us, it must be because he is perfectly free from a selfish ambition, 
and manifests his perfections so far only as the general good re- 
quires. Upon this principle it is evident, had moral evil never been 
introduced, goodness would not have manifested itself in redemp- 
tion, because such a manifestation would not be necessary; but af- 
ter there were sinners exposed to hopeless misery, the Almighty 
Father was pleased to make a new display of his benevolence, 
and to evince before all worlds that even rebels themselves should 
notfinaIlyperish,whilegoodness could preventit. "For Godso loved 
ihe world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lievethinhimshouldnot perish but have everlasting life. "John iiiie. 
I suspect it will be said, that God certainly made all things for 
his own glory, that he worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will, and that creation, providence, redemption, salvation and 
damnation are to be resolved into nothina; else but his sovereisjn 
pleasure. Answer: 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 379 

1. All things \v«re indeed created for his own glory, because, 
as has been before proved, his glory consists in the exercise of his 
attributes, to promote the general welfare of all creatures capable 
of moral happiness. 

2. It is true likewise that every thing he does, is done accord- 
ing to his sovereign pleasure, because the pleasure of his un- 
changeable nature is to do good, and to make all creatures happy 
who consent to be so without injuring the innocent. 

But (3.) if it be affirmed that he ever does any thing among 
his creatures, without having a regard to their general felicity, 
or the security of their rights, there is neither goodness nor jus- 
tice in those actions; and I would be glad to know what glory he 
would display by departing from the moral attributes of his na- 
ture, or what pleasure it could afford him, unless we suppose he is 
governed by a selfish principle, which is pleased to depart from 
goodness and righteousness. This is the very principle that now 
predominates in the devil and his angels, and is the foundation of 
all the vvickedness that is practised in either earth or hell. I leave 
the reader to make the application. 



SECTION IIL 

The supposed violation of truth. 

It may be objected, "If any sinner is pardoned without an inflic- 
tion of the whole penalty, divine truth is violated, seeing all the 
punishment is not endured, which w as threatened against the dis- 
obedient: the soul that sinneth it shall die." 

However great this difficulty may appear, it bears as hard upon 
the other system as upon that which we defend; and therefore 
our opponents are no less concerned in the removal of it than our- 
selves. 

Did God threaten that every sinner should absolutely be pun- 
ished in proportion to his crimes? How then was this fulfilled, if 
any sinner was not thus punished? It alters not the case that his 
surety suffered for him; because the threatening was, not if you sin 
an innocent person shall suffer in your place, but "the soul that 
sinneth it shall die." No matter what the means were throuarh 



280 AN ESSAY ON THE 

which the sinner is rescued from punishment; for there is no way 
for the threatening to be literally fulfilled, but for him in his own 
person to suffer according to what his iniquities deserve. 

If our opponents could prove two things, they would, it istrue, 
have an advantage of us in this particular; if they could prove (1.) 
that the original threatening was, not "the so-ul that sinneth it shall 
die," but every degree of torment that sinners will deserve shall 
absolutely be suffered by some person: and (3.) that the Redeemer 
actually did endure the whole torment, that the elect ever would 
have suffered in hell, if he had not died for them: — let these points 
be established, I say, and they w ill be able to make appear that 
their system secures the attribute of truth, by evincing a literal 
accomplishment of what was denounced against sin. 

But as they cannot prove those points, and do not even profess 
to believe them, the present objection is nugatory, when urged as a 
difficulty peculiar to the doctrine advanced in the preceding pages; 
because it equally aft'ects every system that includes the dili- 
verance of any sinner from the sentence denounced against him, 
whatever the means might be through which his salvation should 
be accomplished. 

This answer, however, does not satisfy the serious inquirer; 
because, though it retorts the objection, yet it does not remove it. 

The proper answer must be founded upon this principle: that 
although it is impossible for God to lie, yet it is not so for him to 
withhold the communication of his truth from creatures who are not 
capable of receiving it without being injured instead of being bene- 
fitted thereby. 

It is manifest through all the scriptures that a condition is of- 
ten implied without being expressed: or in other words, a punish- 
ment is threatened, without any mention of the condition on which 
it may be suspended. We might produce the case of Nineveh, and 
many other instances, where the penal consequences of sin have 
been denounced without any mention of the possibility of pardon, 
or any intimation that mercy would devise a method to prevent 
the execution of the sentence on those who should offend. 

While Adam stood upright God only made known to him the 
wages of sin, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die," without revealing the designs of his mercy in case of disobe- 
dience, until such a revelation was necessary to support his des- 
pairing mind after the transgression: then, and not before, God 
promised that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
bead." 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 281 

The same goodness which discouraged sin by the threatening, 
concealed the designs of mercy to sinners: because a revelation of 
intended mercy could answer no end at that time, but to weaken 
the penal sanctions of the law, and prevent their influence on the 
mind. 

The Almighty Father doubtless pledged his truth, that his ab- 
horrence of sin should be manifested, and that the rights and hap- 
piness of his innocent creatures should be secured; one way by 
which this was to be done, he made known; namely, by the con- 
demnation of offenders: but though the infinite mind conceived an- 
other method through which those ends could be accomplished, in 
a manner that should accoi'd with the salvation of penitent sinners, 
yet he was under no obligation to communicate this knowledge to 
innocent Adam in Paradise: nor would there be any benevolence 
in such a revelation, before sin entered into the world, for the rea- 
son above advanced. 

Now if we charge our Maker with a violation of truth, for re- 
vealing to Adam the penalty of the law, without making known the 
whole extent of his own mercy, this is to say, the withholding of 
truth is falsehood, and if so, there is no way for God to avoid be- 
ing a liar but by making known to us all that he knows himself! 

The threatening of the divine law, absolutely and definitely ex- 
pressed, would stand thus: all sinners, who finally reject the terms 
of mercy, shall suffer ihe penalty. This will most certainly be ac- 
complished. But withhold the clause which includes the revela- 
tion of pardon, and it will be, if you become sinners you shall suf- 
fer the penalty, or the soul that sinneth it shall die, without an 
intimation of any method of salvation or deliverance. 

The sentence against Adam has been by Paine, turned into re- 
proach and ridicule: "The Christian system," says he, "represents 
the x\lmighty as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a quib- 
ble upon the word death:" and perhaps others may say, if part of 
the truth in such a case, were withheld, it would in effect be a 
falsehood; because it would convey a false idea to the mind: name- 
ly, that the sentence was absolute and unconditional. We answer: 

1. God did not declare the sentence was unconditional, and 
that every sinner should absolutely be excluded from the possibil- 
ity of pardon; but only withheld the knowledge of his mercy till 
it was necessary to reveal it. 

2. This affbrded no evidence to Adam that sin could be for- 
given, or that it could not: this indeed left him in a state of entire 
ignorance, but could not lead him into error, unless he should be- 



282 AN ESSAY ON THE 

lieve things without evidence; and in that case he, not his Maker, 
would be the author of the delusion. Must God be charged with 
deceiving his creatures, because they believe what they please, 
upon their own voluntary imaginations, when he has given them 
Bo grounds to believe any thing concerning the matter? 

3. When Adam believed the testimony of God, that sinners 
should die, he believed the truth; and though he had no idea that 
anv should ever be made alive again, yet the withholding of this 
truth from him was no contradiction of the other, and therefore 
was no falsehood. And if the nature of death was left in some de- 
gree unknown or indefinite, to leave him in a state of ignorance, 
whereby he was guarded against dangerous presumptions, this 
surely was the result of perfect goodness. 

4. I take it for granted that God was not bound to reveal Ihe 
whole extent of his mercy to Adam before the fall, but that it was 
right for him to withhold this knowledge from him: also that it 
was just and good for him to make known to Adam the penal 
consequences of sin, in a manner best adapted to his present state, 
and best calculated to deter him from disobedience. To accomplish 
this, the threatening must of necessity be given in such a way as 
w ould convey no idea of salvation for the sinner. And how could 
this be done but by exhibiting the penalty by itself, and leaving 
room for the display of mercy, without any expression of it, by 
concealing the conditionality of the threatening in silence, or un- 
der cover of metaphorical or indefinite expressions.^ 

NowifGodhad arightto withhold part of the truth from Adam, 
it was just for him to do so: if a revelation of part only was at 
that time best calculated to promote the creature's happiness, it 
was also a display of benevolence: therefore to call this a false- 
hood, is to say a lie consists in the exercise of justice and loving 
kindness. 

This would charge with falsehood all legislators whose laws 
threaten murderers with death, without at the same time declaring 
that they may possibly obtain forgiveness. 

It will charge with falsehood the God of nature, who gives sin- 
ners a consciousness that they are guilty, and exposed to punish- 
ment, without, at the same time, giving them any natural convic- 
tion that their sins may be forgiven. This interesting knowledge 
has been hid for ages from many nations, and is only brought to 
light by the gospel, or divine revelation. 

Add to this, that God's promising to Israel in Egypt, that they 
should inherit the laud of Canaan, without at that time express- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 283 

ing any possibility of a forfeiture: — his promising them an illustri* 
ous Messiah, who should sit upon the throne of David forever, 
without revealing the spirituality of his kingdom: — his threatening 
to destroy Nineveh in forty days, without giving a hint that the 
threat was conditional: — his commanding Abraham to slay his 
beloved son, without mentioning that the execution should be pre- 
vented in the last moment: — these, and many other instances might 
be produced to prove our Creator false and deceitful, if falsehood 
consists in leaving persons in a state of ignorance, when certaiu 
branches of knowledge are not suitable to their present state, and 
would tend to their disadvantage and misery. 

Without consuming time upon this theme, we may just observe: 
(1.) That the immoral principle of falsehood consists in an inten- 
tion to deceive another to his injury. (2.) That the expression of it 
consists in exhibiting/a^se evidence to another, by words or actions, 
with a design that he should receive it as evidence of truth. (3.) 
That a part of the truth withheld, when the divulging of it would 
do no good, but would be injurious, is so far from being a false- 
hood: that it results from a principle of loving kindness. (4.) Lastly 
that the truth of God can never contradict his other attributes, 
that he never pledged his veracity to do any thing in opposition to 
them, and consequently, if the death of Christ perfectly displayed 
his justice and goodness, it secured every thing that ever his 
truth was engaged to accomplish or perform. If we say he ever 
promised or threatened to do any thing contrary to his moral attri- 
butes, we say he engaged to do wrong; and if he did not, then the 
utmost he ever engaged to do was to exercise his attributes for 
the defence of his government and the security of general happi- 
ness: consequently, a redenipfion which accomplishes those jjur- 
poses, does every thing that divine trw^/i requires, and therefore 
this attribute is fully displayed by a vindication of the rest. 



SECTION IV. 

Moral principles in the Deity are not different from those which are 
to govern his creatures. 

We come now to consider another plausible evasion. •'•Al- 
though the preceding arguments may be conclusive, as they relate 
to justice and goodness between man and man, yet it may be sup- 



t 



2«4 A^ ESSAY ON ttite 

posed unreasonable and presumptuous to apply them to God, be- 
cause his attributes are beyond our comprehension, and may be to- 
tally different in their operations from such principles in finite 
creatures. What God may or may not do, we know not, and it is 
blasphemy for us to inquire; because he has a right to do every 
thing according to the counsel of his own will. He has made right 
and wrong to be what they are; he could have made them entire- 
ly different had he so pleased; and whatever he wills to do is right, 
for no other reason but because he wills it." 

Some such view as this many appear to have indulged, concern- 
ing the authority or sovereignty of God: He is the fountain of 
justice, they conclude, and may make one standard of it for his 
creatures, and another for himself, because he is under the con- 
troul of no superior authority, and has no other rule of his actions 
but his own sovereign pleasure. This maxim appears to have pre- 
vailed very generally, in the beginning of the 17th century, when 
Calvinian predestination was at the height of its splendour, as 
we may learn from a declaration of king James I. of England; 
When addressing his parliament in defence of his own kingly pre- 
rogative, he expressed himself in these terms: "I conclude, then, 
the point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divini- 
ty, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy, but what 
God wills, that divines may lawfully, and do ordinarily dispute 
and discuss; so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king 
may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be will- 
ing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse 
of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; 
but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of my doings, 
and rule my actions according to my laws."* 

Thus we perceive his majesty assumed the fancied prerogative 
of Ueity; and maintained that justice in kings consists in "declar- 
ing what they will do," and in "ruling their actions according to 
their laws:" that is, that they have a right to make their laws of 
action in any manner they may choose, and then their justice con- 
sists in conforming to these laws till they shall w ill to alter tliem 
and establish another kind of justice, by which to regulate their 
conduct. This august sovereignty he defends by an appeal to the 
well known "axiom in divinity, that it is blasphemy to dispute 
what God may do," because there is no other right and wrong 
with him, but such as he wills to establish, and may alter as he 
will. This, as far as I am able to conceive, is the meaning of the 

*Hume's History of England, vol. iv. page 236. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 2S3 

axiom: for if God may not do any thing contrary to justice, and if 
it is right for us to reason upon this subject, then it is no ''bias- 
phemy to dispute what God may do," and no "sedition in subjects 
to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power." 

I feel inclined to indulge my opposition to this "axiom in divini* 
ty," by attempting to prove, first, that moral principles in the 
Deity are the same that are to regulate the conduct of his crea* 
tures; and, secondly, that they are eternal, were never made, and 
can never be altered or destroyed. 

First, The principles of righteousness in the great Creator are 
nothing different from those principles in men and angels. 

We freely acknowledge that God possesses them in infinitely 
higher degrees of perfection or extent, than any finite creature can; 
but higher degrees of the same thing, can never be different from 
its lowest degrees, unless we absurdly imagine, that righteousness, 
carried to the utmost height of perfection, may become totally al- 
tered in its nature, and may degenerate into an opposite tendency. 
Goodness in creatures disposes them to communicate happiness; but 
this principle in the Deity is infinitely higher and more extensive 
than in them; therefore God is infinitely more disposed to commu* 
nicate happiness than men or angels are. Ajust being will never 
inflict punishments where they are not deserved, or where no end 
of goodness can be promoted by them: but God is infinitely just, 
and therefore he has a stronger opposition to all acts of cruelty 
than any other being in the universe. How ridiculous, therefore, must 
it be, to infer from the superlative excellence of the divine perfec- 
tions, that they may be entirely different in their operations from 
those principles of morality as they are conceived by the human 
understanding! 

It is granted that the creatures of God have not the same na- 
tive right of demand upon him, that they have upon each other: 
each person in relation to his fellow creatures, has a right to his 
existence, and to the means necessary for the support and happi- 
ness of his life; and hence there is a correspondiug obligation in 
them not to violate these rights; but he has no right to demand 
existence at the hand of God, but holds his life and all the bless- 
ings of it, up^n the grant of benevolence. 

As God was not bound injustice to create the universe, so nei« 

ther ^ he bound injustice to continue it in being; and he is under 

no obligation to continue the existence of any man or angel only as 

he has condescended to bind himself by promise: had he not gra- 

O 



2S0 AN ESSAY ON THIS 

ciously pledged his veracity, lie might this moment annihilate eve 
ry creature in existence, without violating the right of any one. 

Hence we are under obligations of gratitude to God for our crea- 
tion, preservation, redemption, forgiveness, sanctification and 
eternal happiness: because all these things are derived from his 
benevolence, which is the only cause of gratitude. Had God been 
bound in justice to do any of those things, upon our inherent right 
of demand, we should have been under no obligation of gratitude 
for them, because we sliould only receive our right, which could 
not be withheld without injustice. For the same reason God is not 
under obligatit)ns of gratitude to any creature, because it is impos- 
sible for any creature to do him a favour, which is the only ground 
of it. 

But all this aflbrds no shadow of evidence that moral princi- 
ples in the Deity are any thing different from those principles in 
his creatures. 

His beneTolence essentially includes the right of option, to 
grant favours or withhold them: the same thing holds in creatures, 
so far as they can be benevolent, which is limited to their fel- 
low-creatures alone, because it is impossible for them to bestow a 
favour upon their Makerj but have, on the contrary, derived their 
being and all their good things from his beneficence, and are there- 
fore bound in duty to God, to do every thing that is right and 
good. 

The attribute of truth is also the same in God that it is in his 
creatures. He is not bound to give his promise, or to confirm it 
by an oath; but when he does so, he graciously binds himself, and 
has no more right to be false and deceitful than any other being. 

His justice is also the same. Though no creature has an inher- 
ent right to demand a perpetual preservation in existence, yet 
every creature, while innocent, has an inherent right to demand 
exemption from the everlasting damnation that is due to the devil 
and his angels, and hence there is a corresponding obligation in 
the Almighty, as in every other being, not to violate the character 
of the innocent, by false accusations, or to make them endure the 
penalties due only to the guilty. To deny this, is to say God has a 
right to be wicked, or that he lias a right to do wrong, which is an 
absolute contradiction, and therefore impossible. 

These principles are so clear, that 1 think no man caif deny 
them without doing violence to his reason and conscience, as well 
as to the whole tenor of the gospel; but as a great stand has been 
made against them, I shall probably find it necessafy to defend 
them more particularly in another place. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 287 

It is unjust to inflict pain, where there is no guilt, uhIcss it be 
necessary, and be done with a kind intention, to prevent a greater 
evil or to promote the happiness of the subject afterwards; there- 
fore, in all cases of this kind where it is inflicted by ajiist and good 
Creator, it is done to snbserve such benevolent intentions, perhaps 
not discoverable by us in the present state, but which may clearly 
be made known when God shall have perfected the dispensations 
of his providence and grace. Thel-e is no other inference pjossible, 
if moral principles in the Deity are the same that regulate the 
conduct of his creatures, and that they are so, I hope to prove by 
the following arguments. 

1. If they be not the same, the moral law affords no evidence of 
the nature of its author. This law we have considered as a copy 
of the divine perfections; but if his justice and goodness be any 
thing different from that kind which his law enjoins, the- study of 
those principles will give us no certain evidence of his moral na- 
ture. His law is holy, just and good; but his own justice and good- 
ness are supposed to be of another kind, and how different they 
may be from the principles we are acquainted with, what creature 
is able to determine? 

2. This hypothesis would leave no rational grounds for hope, 
or faith, or confidence in God: Shall I trust in his goodness? Alas, 
I knew not what it is! his attributes are so profound a mystery, I 
am told, that I am not to apply my narrow conceptions, to draw 
inferences concerning what God may do, but only what he wills 
to do! And this I can never discover, because a thousand promises 
will afford me no consolation, seeing his truth may be as diff*erent 
from ours as any of his other attributes. 

3. It would be impossible for any creature to imitate the great 
Maker of the world, as our Saviour exhorts us to do; because our 
exercising justice and mercy among men is no imitation of God, if 
his justice and mercy be of another kind. 

4. Christians are said to be partakers of the divine nature, and 
are transformed into the image of God, which is said to consist in 
righteousness and true holiness: but if God is governed in his ac- 
tions by a righteousness and holiness of another kind, how are they 
partakers of his nature or image? And why should we worship or 
love a God whose nature and attributes are unknown, and some- 
thing dift'erent from what has ever entered into our hearts to con-? 
ceive? Would not this be to worship an unknown God with a wit-» 
ness? and might it not be said to every one of us, as our Saviour 
said totlie Samaritans, "ye worship, ye know not what"? Leaving 



^88 AN ESSAY ON THE 

our opponents to answer these plain questions, we proceed to 
prove, 

Secondly, that moral principles are eternal, were never created, 
and can never be destroyed. 

1. To say they are not eternal, but were made by the Almighty, 
is to suppose that with God there is no distinction between right 
and wrong, between moral good and evil, but that all he does is 
perfectly indifferent; there being nothing moral in any of his ac- 
tions. He might alter his principles of action in any way that can 
be imagined, and they would be equally righteous, because he made 
right and wrong according to his own good pleasure, and has an 
equal right to alter and change them till that which is now just 
shall become unjust, and that which is now kind shall become cru- 
el! If so, we say God's justice consists in doing any thing, every 
thing, or nothing: or, in ether words, that there is no principle of 
justice in his nature. 

2> If the principles of righteousness are not eternal, but were 
formed by the divine will, it plainly follows that God made his 
own attributes and that they are not eternal. Is not justice an 
eternal attribute of God.^ and does not this consist in having a re- 
gard to that which is right, and an aversion to that which is 
wrong? If so, the distinction between right and wrong is eternal, 
and those principles of moral goodness brought to light by the law 
and the gospel, are everlasting and unchangeable as the divine na- 
ture. 

3. According to "the axiom," or rather thehypothesisundereon- 
sideration, the Almighty could, had he been so minded, have made 
benevolence consist in the infliction of eternal torments on the 
innocent, and have made barbarous cruelty consist in the regular 
promotion of felicity. Had he created all men and angels in hell, 
in order to torment them fprever and ever, it would have been as 
perfectly just and good as any thing he has ever done, because 
with him every thing is righteous and he has no rule for his ac- 
tions but his own sovereign and independent will. 

If we find ourselves unable to digest these shocking opinions, we 
must of necessity admit that the principle of right is the same yes- 
terday, to-day and forever. It was never produced as the effect of 
will or volition, but being as essential to God as his omnipotence, 
it i§ as eternal, as necessary, as indestructable and unchangeably 
fts the divine nature itself. 

But though the nature of justice and goodness is eternal and 
Ol^nufft be altered? yet the exercise of those attributes for our be-* 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 389 

Aefit is a voluntary act of the divine will. God was never bound to 
bring us into being, because it was an effect of his goodness, which 
essentially includes the right of option, to grant favours or to 
withhold them; aud if he were to let us drop into our original 
nothingness, he would do us no wrong; because we have no right 
to demand existence at his hands. But though he is free to bestow 
his favours or to withhold them, yet he is not free to violate jus- 
tice and torment innocent creatures in hell forever, because this 
would be contrary to the principle of right, which is essential to 
his nature and coeval with his eternal existence. 

1 conclude, therefore, that it is so far from being blasphemy to 
reason concerning ivhat God may do, that it is evidently blasphe- 
mous to insinuate, " that it is a matter of indifference with him 
whether he does one thing or another, and that his sovereign will 
may choose to do any thing that ever was done, because any thing 
is righteous that he pleases to make so." Is not this plainly 
saying there are no moral principles in his nature, and that he has 
no regard to them in his actions.^ Did the prophets or apostles in- 
dulge the voluntary humility of modern times, and modestly adore 
the sovereign pleasure, without presuming to mention what God 
might do, or what he might not? Just the contrary. 

" I will publish the name of the Lord," says Moses, " he is 
the rock, his work his perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a 
God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he." — Deut. 
xxxii. 3, 4. 

." Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy 
and truth shall go before thy face." — Psalm Ixxxix. 14. 

'' Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be 
more pure than his Maker?" — Job iv. 17. 

'• Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert 
justice? Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness: and 
from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. For the work 
of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find 
according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, 
heitherwill the Almighty pervert judgment." — Job viii.3. — ^xxxiv. 
12, &c. 

Does the Lord require us to believe that he might do wrong 
without being evil, while his word declares that "Wickedness 
proceedeth from the wicked, and he that sayeth unto the wicked, 
thou art righteous, him shall the people curse; nations shall abhor 
him?" i Sam. xxiv. 13. Prov. xxiv. 34. 



59© AN ESSAY ON THE 

Faithful Abraham, we are told, had the assurance to violate 
king James's "axiom in divinity," and yet was never charged with 
hlasphemy: "And Abraham drew near and said, wilt thou also 
destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee t» 
do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and 
that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee. 
Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. xviii. 2;j, 25, 



SECTION. V. 

TJie infinity of ChrisVs atonement considered. 

It may be objected, that the doctrine defended in the preceding 
pages, supposes it not necessary for Christ to render infinite satis- 
faction for sin; of course, that sin is not an iufinite evil, — that the 
divine law is not an infinite law, — that sinners do not deserve infi- 
nite punishment, — and consequently, that the doctrine of universal 
salvation is true. 

Much use, indeed, has been made of this argument, both by uni- 
versalists and by their opposers. The former argue, ^'thsit finite 
creatures cannot commit an infinite ofi*ence, and therefore cannot 
deserve infinite punishment;" whilst the latter urge with equal 
confidence, "that God being infinite, his law must be equally so; 
a breach of it must therefore be an infinite offence, and conse- 
quently, deserve infinite punishment." The one is considered a 
principal argument in defence of everlasting punishment, the 
other, a principal argument against it: and it is not a little re- 
markable, that the same point [infinity] is the main pillar of 
both arguments, and seems t» make them appear equally plausi- 
ble. 

I cannot help being of opinion, that the conclusion of the latter 
argument is false, and does not follow from the premises, and that 
the conclusion of the former, though admitted, serves nothing to 
the purpose for which it has been so often brought forward. 

The word infinite, Mr. Walker tells us, signifies "unbounded, 
unlimited, immense. It is hyperbolically used for large, great." 

Thus it appears, the word is used in two senses, the one literal, 
the other hyperbolical. When used as a hyperbole, the word sig- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^i 

niBes any thing large or great; and in this sense it will be admit-^ 
ted on all sides to apply to the atonement, to the divine law, to sin, 
and to future punishments. Universalists will very readily ac- 
knowledge, that future punishment will be infinite, if we explain 
ourselves to mean simply that it will be very great; because this 
may be admitted, and the everlasting duration of it be denied not- 
withstanding. 

The argument then, to support the conclusion intended, must 
take the word in its literal signification, namely, "unbounded, un- 
limited," &c. And in this sense I presume it cannot in truth be 
applied to any of the forementioned subjects, but to God alone.-— 
To clear this point and obviate the present objection, let us consi- 
der the following particulars: 

1. It is very evident that God is infinite, or unbounded in his 
essence, and no quality or attribute essential to his Being, can be 
justly considered as finite, because it would suppose the same Be- 
ing is essentially finite and infinite at the same time, which is a 
contradiction; but if we attribute infinity to any thing else but 
God, or that which is essential to his nature, do we not at once 
suppose there are more infinite beings than one in existence.^ and 
what is this but to acknowledge several infinite Gods, or, which 
is the same thing, to attribute to other objects the grand preroga- 
tive which distinguishes the Almighty from every other being.^ 

2. What reason have we to believe the divine law is infinite? 
Because God is the author of it? If this alone be a sufficient rea- 
son, it will follow that every man and every animal in the creation 
is infinite, because God is the author of them. Is it because the 
law is founded upon the divine attributes, or is formed according 
to them, and is made in the image of God? We are expressly told 
that man was made in the image of God: does it therefore follow 
that man was made infinite? If we say the Almighty has ever 
made any infinite things, is not this to affirm that he has created 
Gods like himself, completely infinite as their Maker? 

Where is there a single passage in the Bible that declares, 
either directly or indirectly, that the law of God is infinite? And 
if there be no such passage, whence conies it to pass that many 
receive this hypothesis with so much confidence, and those too, 
who profess to regulate their opinions by the authority of the Bi- 
ble alone? 

3. If it be affirmed that sin is infinite, it is desirable for us to be 
instructed whether each and every sin be infinite, or whether a 
number of sins added together is necessary to bring it up to intini- 



292 A^ ESSAY ON TlfE 

ty. If the first be true, the plain consequence is, that there are no 
degrees in sin, either from its quality or number: for we may se- 
lect any particular sin that ever was committed, and affirm with- 
out fear of contradiction, that if it be infinite, it is equal to all tlie 
other sins that ever were perpetrated in the universe; for none 
surely will affirm that the whole put together will be greater than 
infinity. This were to suppose there are several infinites of dif- 
ferent magnitudes, or, which is the same thing, that a subject may 
be infinite and finite at the same time. 

If we suppose the second, that single sins are finite, but that a 
sufficient number put together will become infinite, then it follows 
that the addition of finite things together will produce infinity, 
than which nothing can be more absurd. And besides, if a certain 
number of sins become infinite, then we must suppose that all sin- 
ners come up to this precise standard, and no farther, or that they 
do not; if they do, then, to say nothing of this flagrant contradiction 
of universal experience, the inevitable consequence is, that the 
guilt of all sinners is exactly equal; if they do not, then some sin- 
ners may rise above the standard, and their sins may become more 
than infinite, whilst others may fall below the standard, and then 
their sins are but finite, and consequently, according to the argu- 
ment, they do not deserve infinite punishment. 

4. 1 readily admit the conclusion, and believe it indubitably true, 
that no sinner ever did or ever will deserve infinite punishment; 
and, I must repeat it, this conclusion, when admitted, serves no- 
thing to the purpose for which it has been so often broughtforward 
by universalists. This I hope to make appear, after first attempt- 
ing to convince all christians that they ai-e forced to admit this 
conclusion, or deny their other established doctrines. 

All christians, as far as I know, believe that some sinners de- 
serve more punishment than others, that none will be punished 
more than they deserve, and consequently that there will be dif- 
ferent degrees of punishment in a future state: but if punishment 
is necessarily infinite because it is everlasting, and if all who go 
to hell will be punished everlastingly, then it demonstrably fol- 
lows, either that there are no different degrees in their punishment 
or that some of them will suff'er more or less than infinite, or that 
one infinite is greater or less than another infinite. 

Suppose the punishment to be everlasting: this does not prove 
it infinite. For no creature has an infinite capacity to suiFer; and 
to say the punishment is infinite while the capacity is finite, is to 
say a creature may suffer more than he is capable of suffering, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 29» 

which is a contradiction. I am aware of the evasion, that what ig 
finite in degree may be infinite in duration. This supposes the pun- 
ishment to be both finite and infinite, which is also a contradiction. 
The duration of a sinner's punishment is as far from beingiutinite 
as its degree; and yet that duration may be everlasting. 

Was there not a precise point of time when his punishment be- 
gan? And suppose we take our stand at any conceivable point of 
future duration, and look back at the point where any particular 
person's duration began; is it not completely finite, limited and 
measurable, as any thing that can be imagined.? And will it not 
always be finite, limited and measurable, which infinity cannot be? 
Will it be said it is infinite, because it is always enlarging? Nay, 
this is the very thing that proves the duration to be finite; because 
infinity cannot be enlarged. If we say a creature's duration is infi- 
nite because it is perpetually enlarging, then the duration of a day 
or an hour is infinite; for our time was as regularly enlarging du- 
ring the first hour of our lives, as it ever will be. 

Suppose a person in an immense or boundless plain, to commence 
at any given point, and travel as regularly as our time has elapsed 
from the moment we were born: how far must he travel before 
his journey would become infinite? It is evident that after mil- 
lions of ages, the extent of his progress, though great, would be 
as completely finite, and subject to mensuration, as it was when 
he had advanced but a single mile. And no argument can be offer- 
ed to prove that his journey will ever be infinite, but what would 
equally prove it was so during the first mile, or even the sixtieth 
part of that distance. Nothing ever will be infinite but what al- 
ways was so; and it is very obvious that boundless or infinite dura- 
tion belongs to God alone, who is the only being whose existence 
never had a beginning, and therefore the only one who properlj 
inhabitetk eternity. 

Hence it appears, that neither the happiness or misery of any 
finite creature can ever be infinite either in degree or duration.— 
Not in degree, because no creature has an infinite capacity; not in 
duration, because the existence of every creature had a beginning, 
and therefore can no more be enlarged into infinity, than a mau 
oan be changed into a God. 

It is far from my purpose to enter into the controversy respect- 
ing eternal punishments, a controversy replete with presumptuous 
conjectures, seldom productive of any good effects upon the hu- 
man mind, and too often pernicious in its tendency: but it ap- 
peared necessary to give a brief statement of these arguments, t» 



^94. AN ESSAY ON THE 

show that we are under no necessity of assuming the hypothesis, 
that sin is infinite, to avoid admitting the doctrine of a restoration 
from hell. And as to an infinite atonement, of which so much has 
heen said, it is a position not derived from any part of the oracles 
of God; and I know not what good has been obtained for man- 
kind by this gratuitous addition to the scripture doctrine of our re- 
demption. 

That the atonement made by our Lord Jesus Christ was abun- 
dantly sufficient to accomplish every end intended, is very clear; 
but whether it be called infinite or not, is a matter, I apprehend, 
which affects not the doctrine of the present essay, as might easi- 
ly be evinced were it necessary. That our Redeemer is God over 
all, blessed forever; and that aone but God could possibly ransom 
the guilty, has been already stated, and the reasons advanced, 
which need not be repeated; but whatever denomination we give 
to this atonement, it is sufficient for us to know, that it displayed 
the fuUglory of God, and secured the diguity and perfect influ- 
ence of his government, in the grant of pardon to penitent sinners. 



SECTION VI. 

A statement of the doctrine of original sin, in reply to the charge, 
that our system denies it. 

It may be said, "The plan of redemption defended in thest 
pages, by denying the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his 
righteousness to us, implies that Adam's sin was not imputed to 
his posterity, and thus the doctrine of original sin is contradict- 
ed, and we find ourselves in the heart of Jirianism, making rapid 
strides to infidelity." 

This objection deserves a full and particular answer, that we 
may avoid the alarming charge of Arianism. We ought to avoid 
the doctrine of Arians and Socinians, so far as they are erroneous; 
if they should happen to be right in any thing, it is to be hoped 
we will not reject any part of the truth, and run into dehision, for 
fear of being called by such a frightful name. 

As to the doctrine of the fall, we believe, (1.) That Adam was 
the general representative of his posterity. (2.) That we derive 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 295 

from him a nature that is depraved, and prone to evil continually. 
(3.) That all mankind are subject to sufferings and death, in conse- 
quence of the original apostacy. 

1. He was the general representative of his posterity. By this 
we mean that the blessings of Paradise were given to him and his 
posterity, on condition of his obedience to the comm and of God. 
Had he stood upright, every man born of a woman would have 
been a native heir to the blessing of that happy state; but by dis- 
obedience the whole was forfeited, and his posterity are involved 
in the consequences of that forfeiture: hence, "man that is born of 
a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like 
a flower, and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow, and conti- 
nueth not." — Job. xiv. 1, 2. 

When the actions or decisions of one man are not confined to 
himself, but thousands will be affected by his good or bad conduct, 
he is said to be the representative of those whose interests and 
welfare depend upon his decisions. Thus we call the members of 
eongress and of the state legislatures our representatives, because 
we and our posterity will be affected by their official acts, whether 
they be good or bad. But if our nation should be involved in mise« 
ry and ruin, by the bad conduct of our representatives, as we all 
have been by the bad conduct of our first representative, I hope 
no one would conclude that our children would really be to blame 
for what was done by the national authority before they were born. 
Shall we infer, that because they have to share in the consequen- 
ces of their rulers' actions, they equally share in the guilt thereof? 
If so, how do we prove a representative to be a highly responsible 
character.^ If posterity bear the responsibility in the same propor- 
tion that they are involved in the consequences, it is very evident 
that the individual representative is no more culpable for the 
wrong direction of his public actions, than he would be if he 
acted for himself alone. 

We say, for example, that Adam was highly responsible, and 
there was a great degree of guilt in his disobedience, because so 
many millions are affected by it. Then we turn about and say 
these millions are affected by it because they themselves are guilty. 
It would be unjust, we conclude, for them to suffer, being innocent, 
or to suffer more than their guilt deserves; therefore so far as 
they are involved in misery, so far they are guilty. Now who does 
not see that we suppose them involved in no consequences, but 
those in which their own guilt has involved them? and consequent- 
ly that their supposed federal head is no more culpable for his 



39S AN ESSAY ON THE 

public actions, than he would be if he acted only as a private indi* 
vidual. It is true, that the acts of representatives are, by a figure, 
transferred to the nation, and are called the acts of the Ameri- 
cans^ or the conduct of the French or British nation^ but every 
man of common judgment understands such expressions, not in a 
literal, but in a figurative sense, and knows that no man is really 
culpable for the obnoxious acts of any government, but those w hose 
will was employed in the matter, or who approved of the conduct 
of the rulers. 

The sin of Adam is, by a like figure, called the sin of the world, 
or the original apostacy of the human race; because the whole race 
were represented by Adam, derive inherent propensities to evil 
from him, and feel the temporary consequences of his fall. If our 
opponents mean nothing more than this, when they say Adam's sin 
is imputed to his posterity, we are agreed. If when they say all* 
men are born sinners, or that we are a wicked race, they wonld be 
understood in the same sense as those who say the English or 
French are an unjust and a haughty nation, there is no cause of 
dispute between us. We all know that the infants of Europe are not 
really to blame for the present acts of their councils, or for the 
wrong conduct of any unrighteous king or emperor. In like man^ 
ner, we know that we and our children are not really guilty of any 
crime that was committed in Paradise. 

2. We all derive from Jidam a nature prone to evil contitmally. 
This melancholy truth is confirmed by universal experience. 
Many good men have established it by arguments drawn from the 
operations of human nature, and the man must be a great stranger 
to himself, who is under the necessity of going out of his own soul 
for evidence of this internal and native degeneracy. We are na- 
turally inclined to do wrong, and to become enemies of all right- 
eousness. This truth has been so often proved, and indeed it is so 
evident from the experience and history of all mankind, that it is 
almost incredible that any person should seriously call it in ques- 
tion for a moment. Taking the fact for granted, let us inquire, as 
others have done before us, how is this fact to be accounted for.^ 

Is this original inclination or propensity to do w rong a natural 
or Sipenal consequence of Adam's transgression.^ That it is a na- 
tural effect of sin, appears evident from the three following con- 
siderations: First, it w as not contained in the original threatening, 
and therefore was no part of the penalty: God never said "In the 
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely" have strong propen- 
sities to sin, but "thou shalt surely die." This, we graBt,may imply 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 29^ 

the loss of spiritual life as well as natural; but is there no medium 
between the loss of spiritual life, and the acquiring of innate pro- 
pensities to sin? Spiritual life, I am apt to think, consists in a con- 
sciousness of the presence and the love of God. None will deny 
that it was possible for this to have been withdrawn from Adam 
before he fell, and whatever is possible may be supposed for the 
sake of argument: let us suppose then, that God had for certain 
purposes taken away (or withdrawn) Adam's spiritual life, while 
he stood iu a state of innocence; will any one say he would imme- 
diately, and of necessity have felt strong propensities to sin? I 
rather think he would have felt a strong inclination to p'fli/, and 
to seek that life again, which was the support of his happiness, 
and the principal source of his tranquillity. 

Secondly, to say such propensities are not natural effects of sin, 
is to suppose that Adam, after his rebellion, had no evil propen- 
sity in his nature, till God executed the penalty upon him: and 
moreover, that he might have continued multiplying his crimes to 
the present day, without contracting any evil bias, provided God 
had suffered him to pass, without executing the sentence of the law 
upon him; because sin, of itself, is supposed to do no manner of 
harm to the sinner, but to leave him in quiet possession of all his 
internal rectitude and felicity, till the hand of God implants evil 
dispositions in him, as a punishment of his crimes! Shall we repre- 
sent wickedness as a perfectly harmless thing, that we may have 
the pleasure of charging God with all the disorder and misery 
there is in the universe? It is evident from the word of God, that 
Adam had strong propensities to evil, to run away and hide him- 
self from his Maker — to excuse and justify himself — to cast the 
blame on his partner — and to insinuate that God ought not to have 
given her to him: — and all this happened immediately after his 
transgression, before God had pronounced any curse against him, 
much less executed it: a clear proof that the moral disorders of his 
nature were produced by himself, as the natural and necessary 
consequence of his voluntary wickedness and apostacy. 

Thirdly, the truth I defend is confirmed by universal experience: 
every sinner in the world knows, or may know, that his actual 
sins regularly tend to increase the strength of his evil habits and 
propensities. As we know this to be the nature of sin in our days^ 
and in all parts of the world, why suppose it had another nature 
in the days of Adam? Why contradict the bible, which so clearly 
exhibits the state of his mind, before any curse or penalty was ex- 
ecuted upon him? I know it may be said, God executed the sen- 



298 AN ESSAY ON THE 

tence on liiin, the very moment after he sinned, by taking away his 
spiritual life; but there is not a shadow of proof of it in the bible 
or any where else. It is an easy thing to form an hypothesis; but 
there is no evidence whatever, of any act of God to manifest his 
displeasure against the first sin, till after Adam and Eve attempted 
to hide themselves among the trees of the garden. If the loss of 
spiritual life was a natural effect of the apostaey, it is true that 
it immediately followed the transgression; but if it was a penal 
consequence, we demand proof that any penalty was executed till 
after God pronounced the curse upon Adam, before which time he 
had surely manifested strong propensities to sin. 

As we know by experience, that actual sin produces an evil bias 
in the mind, and tends to confirm and strengthen our native prone- 
ness to do wrong; we have all the evidence that the nature of the 
subject can admit or require, that Adsun contracted similar dispo- 
sitions, as the immediate effects of his transgression: and as the 
goodness of God spared him to multiply his kind, we are all born 
in a disordered state, because it was impossible for him to propa- 
gate any other nature than his own. 

It remains for us to inquire, whether this natural propensity to 
evil is in itself a sin? That it is the effect of sin, and inclines the 
mind to the practice of it, is too evident to admit of controversy; 
but whether it be proper to denominate that to be sin, which exists 
in us, prior to all moral or voluntary actions, is not so evident. St. 
Paul's definition of sin is, that it is the transgression of the law, 
Mr. Wesley puts in two explanatory words, and defines sin to be 
"a voluntary transgression of a known law." By comparing this 
with the state of infants, we shall find they are not sinners in the 
sense of those definitions: but the term, sin, is sometimes applied 
to the effects of it, according to the following statements of Mr. 
Cruden; speaking of sin, he says, "It is taken (1.) for original 
corruption, or the depravity and naughtiness of our corrupt na- 
ture, which is prone to all evil. Psal. li. 5. (2.) ?or actual sin, 
which flows from the corruption of nature. Jam. i. 15. (3.) It is 
taken for the guilt and defilement of sin. Psal. li. 2. (4.) For 
the punishment of sin. Gen. iv. 7. (5.) Sin is taken both for the 
guilt and punishment of sin. Psal. xxxii. 1. (6.) The name of sin 
is often given to the sacrifice of expiation, or to the sacrifice for 
sin. Levi iv. 3, 25, 29. What is there rendered sin-offering, is ia 
Hebrew, sin. 2 Cor. v. 21." 

Taking the word in this latitude of meaning, it is certain that 
it may in one sense, namely, the first mentioned by Mr. Cruden, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 299 

Ve applied to all infants. We may very confidently say, they are 
all born in sin, and have sin in them, provided we carefully dis- 
tinguish the different senses in which the word is taken, and apply 
it to infants, only as signifying "original corruption, or the de- 
pravity and naughtiness of our corrupt nature, which is prone t« 
all evil." If we confound those different meanings of the word, 
and speak of all men being born sinners, leaving the world to un- 
derstand us as speaking of sin, properly so called, we shall inad- 
vertently countenance the old merciless hypothesis, "that there 
are infants in hell not a span long." A sentiment this, which 
some bold professors have had the effrontery to avow, but which 
our opponents generally either disbelieve, or are ashamed openly 
to acknowledge. 

Let us inquire, in the next place, whether we have proper au- 
thority to consider infants as guilty creatures. Dr. J. defines 
guilt to be "an obligation to suffer punishment for sin.'^* 

If by an obligation to suffer, he means deserving to suffer, or 
thai justice requires it of them, the definition, 1 think, is perfectly 
correct, provided he takes the word sin according to St. Paul's ac- 
count of it when he says sin is a transgression of the law, A guilty 
person deserves to suffer a certain penalty: why.^ because he has vo- 
luntarily transgressed a known law, that was given him by just au- 
thority. To say a person is guilty who never committed a crime, is 
to say he is guilty of nothing, Sind ihsit criminality and guilt have no 
necessary relation to each other. After a jury have investigated a 
charge presented to them, they bring in their verdict, guilty or not 
guilty: when they decide that the prisoner is guilty, every man of 
common sense understands them to mean, that he has perpetrated 
some act, which is criminal, and deserves punishment. If they de- 
termine that he is not guilty, we understand them to mean that he 
did not commit the unlawful act, and therefore is no criminal, and 
deserves no punishment. 

There are many degrees of guilt, it is true, and one person may 
he more guilty than another; but guilt, in every degree of it, is in- 
separable from some criminal action, knowingly and willingly 
performed by the guilty person. Did any jury ever find a medium 
hetween being guilty and not guilty? Did they ever decide that the 
prisoner is neither guilty not innocent, or that he is guilty and not 
guilty at the same time.^ If they were to say that the prisoner is 
clear of having done the action charged upon him, but is neverthe- 



* See Mr. Wesley's Vindication of the Doctrine of Original Sin. 



30© AN ESSAY ON THE 

less guilty of the charge, would we admire the wisdom and equi- 
ty of their decision, or hiss their verdietout of the world, as a con- 
tradiction, shocking to the common judgment and conscience of 
all mankind? 

The thing we mean by a person's being guilty is, that he has 
^knowingly and willingly broken a law which he had power to 
keep, and the observance of which he knew to be enjoined on him 
by proper authority: and that he therefore deserves punishment.'* 
If there be any other kind of guilt, I would gladly be informed of 
its nature; for I have never yet been able to conceive any other 
kind. I have somewhere seen a definition given in these words: 
"Being liable to suffer on aecount of sin." The word liable, in this 
sentence, is subject to some ambiguity: it may mean a person's de- 
serving to suffer on account of his own sin, and then it is the sam© 
with the definition above given; or it may signify the being expo- 
sed to punishment on account of the sin of others. If guilt consist 
in being liable to suffer on account of another's sin, it wilf indeed 
follow inevitably that infants are guilty, or else that their suffer-;; 
ings do not come upon them on account of Adam's sin. The latter 
is not pretended, and therefore we must admit the conclusion, or 
refute the definition from which it folloAvs. This leads us to our 
third proposition. 

3. All mankind are subject (or liable) to sufferings and tempo- 
ral death in consequence of the original apostacy. 

This fact is undeniable, and is admitted by christians almost 
universally. Our opponents think it impossible for us to believe it, 
without admitting the consequence, that infants are guilty. Why? 
because guilt consists in being in any way liable to suffer on ac- 
count of sin. This is taken for granted; and we demand of them to 
produce evidence of its truth from reason or revelation. Admitting 
it to be true, for the sake of argument, we must take these conse- 
quences along with us: (1.) that when the heathen emperor caused 
hundreds of the primitive christians to be murdered, under pre- 
tence that they set fire to the city of Rome, a crime which he him- 
self is said to have perpetrated-, those christians were really guil- 
ty, because they suffered on account of sin. (2.) When sin was first 
introduced in God's creation, it injured innocent creatures, and 
made them suffer, or it did not; if it did not, it follows that this 
enormous evilwhich deserves everlasting damnation, was perfectly 
inoffensive in its nature and tendency, and did no harm to any 
living creature; if it did, then those innocent creatures were 
guilty, because they suffered on account of sin. (3.) All the beasts 



PLAIV OF SALVATION. sai 

6f the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea, 
are guilty creatures unless it can be proved that their sufferings are 
not on account of sin. (i.) Lastly, The Lord Jesus Christ himself 
was a guilty creature, according to this definition, and it seems 
that nothing saves the very trees of the forest, or the rocks of the 
mountains from being guilty, but their incapacity to suffer. 

The last consequence is admitted by our opponents, that the 
Lord Jesus was in some sort guilty, by imputation, and Luther 
called him the greatest sinner in the world; but 1 never heard 
that Adam's sin was imputed to the quadrupeds and the fowls^ 
though it is almost universally acknowledged that they suffer and 
die in consequence of the original apostacy. The imputation must 
he kept up in three particular cases, it seems, however others may 
be spared, (l.) The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. 
(2.) The imputation of all our sins to Christ, (a.) The imputation 
of Christ's righteousness to us. 

We are perfectly willing and desirous to understand this doc- 
trine, and to examine whatever evidence may be advanced in its 
support. I, for one, am greatly at a loss to comprehend the mean- 
ing of this doctrine of imputation. I often find it stated, that 
Adam's sin m as in some sort imputed to his posterity; that our sins 
were in some sense imputed to Christ, and the like. In what sense 
they mean, is hard to determine. The word occurs sometimes 
in scripture; but I find it applied to faith^ more than to Adam or to 
Christ; and it commonly means nothing more than forgiving our 
sins, and accepting us in Christ in consequence of our believing. 
•'Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is cover- 
ed. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, 

and in whose spirit there is no guile." Psal. xxxii. 1, 2.^ 

*'For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous-^ 
ness. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if 
wehelieve on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 
Rom. iv. 9, 23. Thus it appears that faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ is accepted instead of spotless righteousness; that is, when 
we believe, our sins are forgiven, and we are accepted as though 
we had never sinned, because the goodness of Ood in Jesus Christ 
is such, that he no longer demands the spotless and uninterrupt- 
ed righteousness which the old covenant demanded, but gracious- 
ly imputes or reckons faith unto us for righteousness. 

The bible no where says that Adam's sin was imputed to his 
posterity; and we would gladly know how the matter is to be un- 
derstood. 

Qq 



303 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Is tlie act of breaking God's law in paradise imputed to the 
men of this generation? We were guilty of that act, or we were 
not; if we were, we acted, and broke the laws of God, some thou- 
sands of years before we were born; if we were not, to impute it 
to us is nothing more nor less than to allege a false accusation 
against us. 

Will it be granted that we are clear of the criminal act, and 
yet be maintained that the guilt ©f it is imputed to us? Does tkis 
mean that we are not guilty of the crime, but are guilty of the 
guilt? If so, we are as far out at sea as ever, and the subject is 
truly a profound mystery, almost equal to that of transubstantia- 
tiou. 

That Adam's sin may be figuratively imputed to us, as the acts 
of the English Parliament are imputed to the British nation, is 
readily admitted, because Adam was our representative, and we 
are involved in the effects of his bad conduct; but this does not con- 
stitute us guilty, in any intelligible sense of the expression. 

I am apt to think our opponents themselves, when they come t» 
explain themselves, mean no more by the imputation of Adam's sin^ 
but that we are involved in the natural consequences of it; at least, 
if they mean any thing else, they seem unable to tell us what they 
mean. 

Mr. Wesley gives extracts from Dr. AVatt's and Mr. Hebdea 
upon this subject, in which we find the following explanation of 
the doctrine in question. 

" When a man has broken the law of his country, and is pun* 
ished for so doing, it is plain, that sin is imputed to him; his wick- 
edness is upon him; he bears his iniquity; that is, he is reputed or 
accounted guilty: He is condemned and dealt with as an offen- 
der. 

" On the other hand, if an innocent man, who is falsely accused, 
is acquitted by the court, sin is not imputed to him, but right- 
eousness is imphted to him; or, to use another phrase, his right- 
eousness is upon him. 

"Farther, if a man has committed a crime, but the prince par- 
dons him, then he is justified from it; and his fault is not imputed 
to him. 

" But if a man having committed treason his estate is taken 
from him and his children, then they bear the iniquity of their 
f Lther, and his sin is imputed to them also. 

"But it may be asked, how can the acts of the parent's treason 
be imputed to his little child? since those acts were quite out of 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 303 

the reach of an infaat, nor was it possible for him to eommit 
them. 

" 1 answer, (1.) Those acts of treason or acts of service, are by 
a common figure, said to be imputed to the children, when they 
suffer or enjoy ihe consequences of their father's treason or emi- 
nent service; though the particular actions of treason or service 
could not be practised by the children. This would easily be un- 
derstood, should it occur in an human history. And why not, when 
it occurs ill the sacred writings.^" 

Thus far our author's account of the matter is clear and intelli- 
gible: It is only "by a common figure" that "those acts of treason 
or acts of service are said to be imputed to the children: And 
why not, when it occurs in the sacred writings?" But he pro- 
ceeds: 

"I answer, (2.) Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to 
a law, or for the legal result of such an act; that is, the guilt, or 
liableness to punishment. Now when we say the sin of a traitor 
is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the act of the 
father is charged upon the child: but that the guilt or liableness 
to punishment is so transferred to him, that he suffers banishment 
or poverty on account of it."* 

It is true, " If a man having committed treason, his estate is 
taken from him and his children," the children suffer privation or 
" poverty on account of it;'^ but no man in his right mind believes 
they are really guilty of treason, because they are liable to suffer on 
account of their father's crimes. If his fault is "said to be imputed 
to the children," it is only "by a common figure," and is not lite- 
rally understood, as though the children were really involved in 
the father's guilt, because from their peculiar relation to him they 
have to endure the consequences. Were children ever made res- 
ponsible to any government for their fathers treason.^ Were they 
ever accused of his crime, and pronounced guilty, by the judicial 
authority of the nation? I presume not: and neither are the chil- 
dren of Adam pronounced guilty of his crime, in any part of the 
oracles of God. 

But "guilt," and a "liableness to punishment," arc by our 
author considered as synonymous: if he really mean that all the 
beasts of the creation are guilty of Adam's sin, because they are 
liable to punishment, let him openly declare it; and we will pa- 
tiently attend to the arguments or scriptures by which such a 
curious opinion is to be supported. 



* See "The doctrine of original sin," &c. page 384, &e. 



$04 AN ESSAY ON THE 

The guilt of Adam's children is inferred from two passages of 
scripture, one is, that "we were all by nat re children of wrath," 
and the other, "that judgment has come upon all men unto con*- 
demnation." 

That wrath, or God's displeasure against sin, has come upon 
human nature, and even upon animal nature universally, is most 
evident; the very s^round has been cursed for Adam's sake; but this 
is no proof that the gi ound is guilty: because though the words 
eurse, wrath and condemnation commonly signify an execution of 
the sentence which justice requires, yet the words are sometimes 
applied, not to the guilty person only, but to other creatures or 
objects, which in some way stand related to him, and which are 
cursed for his sake, and not for their own. "Cursed is the ground 
for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17. Therefore is your land a desolation and 
a curse, at this day. Jer. xliv. 22. I will curse your blessings; yea, 
I have cursed them already. Mai. ii. 2. Master, behold the fig- 
tree which thou cursedst is withered away. Mark. xi. 2i. At his 
wrath the earth shall tremble Jer. x. lO. I saw the tents of Cushan 
in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble. 
"Was the Lord displeased against the rivers? was thine anger 
against the rivers.? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst 
ride upon thine horses, and thy chariots of salvation?" Hab. iii. 

" By one man's offence, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation." Rom. V. 18. This alludes to the condemnation which 
came upon Adam when he was driven out of the garden, and sub- 
jected to labour, misery and death. Human nature was thus con- 
demned, and this judgment has certainly come upon all men, on 
account of their relation to their original representative. But 
when the judgments of God come upon a people, do they fall on 
none bat those who are guilty of the crime for which the judg- 
ments vvere sent? When the judgment of God sent fire and brim- 
stone upon Sodom for the abominations of that people, will any one 
say that the infants of that city vvere guilty of the crimes which 
hrought down fire from heaven, and consumed them? I presume no 
persoi) will be disposed to say so: and yet it is evident the judg- 
ment came upon them, and they "were children of this wrath even 
as others." 

What shall we say of those days of wretchedness, at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, such as have not been before and shall not be 
again? "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which 
are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are witj^ 



PLAN OF SALVATION. a05 

child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be 
great distress in the land, and wrathupon this people." Luke. xxi. 
32. When the Lord Jesus pronounced this woe, a v^ord which fre- 
quently signifies a sentence of condemnation, did he mean that the 
mothers or their infant children were cursed in a peculiar sense, 
as being uncommonly guilty.^ Were the infants of the Jewish na- 
tion guilty of "crucifying the Lord of glory," or of the other crimes 
which brought misery and destruction upon them.^ The Jews said, 
*His blood be on us and on our children;" and it is evident the pe- 
culiar judgments which were sent on account of this crime, fell on 
their children, as well as themselves. Were the children there- 
fore guilty.^ or shall we say the beasts and fowls which shared in 
the general misery, had the crimes of the high-priest, and of the 
pharisees, imputed to them.^ Thousands who knew not their right 
hand from their left were involved in the scene of wretchedness, 
which was brought on by the wickedness of the Jews, and which 
our Saviour calls vengeance, and wrath upon this people. The in- 
fants in Jerusalem, therefore, though they never crucified the Sa- 
viour, nor gave their consent to it, nor had it imputed to theni, 
were nevertheless subjected to the general "judgment unto con-f 
demnation, and were (by birth, or nature) children of wrath even 
as others." 

But arguments, as well as scriptures, are urged against us in 
this controversy. Some writers, who have thought it their duty, 
and a very important one, to exert their talents in defence of im- 
puted righteousness, and original or imputed sin, though not in 
general friendly to metaphysical distinctions, have ventured to fa- 
vour the world with some rational arguments in defence of these 
mysteries. Their arguments arc plausible; and are, for the most 
part, drawn from the principle, "that the miseries and death which 
come upon all the children of Adam, can never be reconciled with 
justice, unless they are all in some sort guilty " This subject shall 
be examined, and due attention be paid to their reasonings, in 
the following section. 



306 AN ESSAY ON THE 



SECTION VII. 



^ view of the princijjal arguments by which infant guilt is de» 

fended, 

Mr. Taylor, the great opposer of the original corruption of our 
nature, laid down the axiom, that "no just constitution can punish 
the innocent." Hence he concluded that infants are not punished 
for Adam's sin; but only sufifer as a punishment to their parents, 
who are actual sinners. His opponents admitted the same axiom, 
but maintained that our sufferings are on account of sin, and there- 
fore that they are properly considered as legal punishments: hence 
they concluded all infants are guilty. 

Dr. Watts is of the same opinion. After describing the suffer- 
ings of children, he says,* "are these treated as innocent creatures.^ 
Or rather as under some general curse, involved in some general 
punishment." 

"But may not these sufferings of children be for the punishment 
of the sins of the parents.^" 

"Not with any justice or equity, unless the sins of the parents 
are imputed to their children." 

Mr. Hebden corroborates the declaration of Dr. Watts: "It is 
incompatible with the justice and mercy of God," says he, "to ap- 
point afflictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it 
was because the sins of others were imputed to him." Again, he 
says, "How are many dead, or made sinners, through the disobe- 
dience of Adam? His first sin so far affects all his descendants, as 
to constitute them guilty, or liable to all that death, which was 
contained in the original threatening." Again: "By man, in the 
twenty-first verse, is meant Adam. The all spoken of are all his 
natural descendants. These all die; that is, as his descendants, are 
liable to death, yea, to death everlasting." 

These are respectable authorities; and it would be an easy thing 
to produce the testimony of many others, to the same effect. This 
doctrine concerning original guilt has long been considered of 
great importance with all the defenders of imputed righteousness, 
finished salvation, and eternal election and reprobation. They 
perceive if this should be given up, reprobation will be despoiled 
of a very plausible covering, and the general system of fatality or 
predestination will be in imminent danger. 



Page 69 and 71. 



PLAN OF SALVATION 307 

Accordingly, the last quoted author says, «A denial of original 
sin," (by which he means "guilt" that deserves "death everlasting") 
contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vain 
man, and to ascribe to God's free grace, not man's free will, the 
whole of his salvation. Nor indeed can we let this doctrine go, 
without giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, of 
the essential articles of the christian faith," 

This statement, I think, is correct, if by "the essential articles 
of the christian faith," we are to understand the distinguishing te- 
nets of Mr. Calvin and his followers. Their principles have a close 
connexion with the doctrine of original guilt, and therefore to 
them the doctrine is very important. Their conviction of its im- 
portance, may possibly cause them to be satisfied with very slight 
evidence of its truth. 

Some honest Armenians, I fear, have been carried away by the 
general outcry against the danger of giving up this most essential 
and interesting principle. We have been cautioned against Socin- 
iajiism, and very justly, if Socinians deny the deep depravity of hu- 
man nature; this we acknowledge in all its extent; but this is not 
thought sufficient: to avoid the snares of the philosophical Socin- 
ians, it seems, we must espouse the doctrine in all its sacred myste- 
ry, and maintain that infants are in some sort guilty. Are we per- 
mitted to inquire in what sort they are guilty.^ ^ 

Are they guilty of having a nature prone to sin.^ or guilty of be- 
ing conceived and born of such sinful parents.^ And was Adam 
guilty likewise for being made capable of sinning, and for being 
liable to the devil's temptations.? Are the South Sea savages, who 
never heard of Christ, guilty for their want of faith in him.? or 
brutes and children for their ignorance of God? 

And besides, if the guilt of infants arises from their native de- 
pravity, why recur to the doctrine of imputation to account for it? 
Their depravity is real, andnot merely imputed; but ouropponents 
tell us the doctrine of original guilt, and that of imputation must 
stand or fall together. They argue, that infants are guilty because 
they suffer; and they cannot suffer on account of the parents' sin 
"with any justice or equity," says Dr. Watts, "unless the sins of 
the parents are imputed to their children." It is therefore plain 
that a denial of the imputation of sin, is a denial of their guilt, 
^nd consequently their guilt arises not from their depravity, 
which is real and not merely imputed. 

It remains then that they are guilty of Adam's sin, by imputa- 
tion. The apostle tells us condemnation came by one. qffence. We 



308 AN ESSAY ON THE 

would be glad to know whether this crime were divided, half be- 
ing imputed to us, and half to Adam, or whether the whole were 
imputed to his descendants? If half were imputed, we deserve 
half the penalty; if the whole, then all infants are as guilty as 
Adam, and our author is right when he says, "His descendants 
are liable to death, yea, to death everlasting. ^"^ 

Thus, the secret is out. There is supposed to be no mediuia 
between believing infants are guilty, and being Socinians: that 
there is no medium between believing infants guilty, and acknow- 
ledging that they deserve death everlasting: therefore, Mr. 
Whitefield's conclusion stands iirm with all its train, " that 
election and reprobation are highly just and reasonable." 

Is it any longer wonderful that our opponents should be fond of 
this doctrine, and should think that they cannot "• let it go, with- 
out giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, of the 
essential articles of the Christian faith.^" 

I suspect we must follow them in all their conclusions, or, deny- 
ing the principle from whence they set out, (that is, the guilt of 
infants,) maintain that infants are not guilty in any sort or sense 
whatever. 

Here then we are fairly at issue. AVhat are the arguments by 
which infant guilt is to be supported? 

The main argument is drawn from the axiom above mentioned, 
and is produced by different authors in various forms of expres- 
sion. It is stated by Mr. Hebden, in as clear and intelligible a 
manner, as by any I have seen: his w ords are these: 

" Since Adam's posterity are born liable to death, which is the 
due wages of sin, it follows, that they are born sinners. No art can 
set aside the consequence." Again: 

" If original sin is not, either death is not the wages of sin, or 
there is punishment without guilt: God punishes innocent, guilt- 
less creatures. To suppose which, is to impute iniquity to the 
M St Holy." 

I rejoice to see a man thus come out, clear and open as the sun, 
and exhibit his opinions and arguments in the concise and in- 
telligible style of manly reasoning, without confusing or covering 
the question, and w ithout attempting to conceal himself in the 
shades of mystery. 

It is necessary iirst, to notice one or two of the terms of his ar- 
gument, that we may not dispute where we both agree. 

If. by being '*born sinner?," his meaning be, that we are born in. 
a disordered state, w ith a nature prone to sin, this conclusion i?i 



4PLAN OF SALVATION. 309 

admitted without delay or hesitation. But if it be, that we are 
born guilty, the question remains yet to be decided. 

When he says "death is the due wages of sin," if his meaning 
be "death everlasting," I acknowledge it is always the wages of 
sin. But if it be temporal death, and if by the wages of sin we are 
to understand, ?l penalty which justice requires, although this is the 
wages of sin originally, yet it is not so in all cases, otherwise the 
beasts and the fowls of heaven are sinners, which has not yet been 
pretended. 

Having premised thus much, we come to the argument, the 
whole force of which may be expressed in these words: It is unjust 
to inflict misery and death on those who are not guilty; but misery 
and death are inflicted on infants; therefore those w ho say infants 
are not guilty, charge God with injustice, 

I purpose now to show, first, that this argument, if solid, would 
involve our opponents in as great a dilemma as ourselves; and se*- 
condly, that it has no strength to support their conclusion. 

l^irst, the argument, if true, would involve them as much as 
aurselves. This will appear from the three following reflections. 

1. They must prove that the inferior animals are guilty , or that 
they do not suffer on account of sin, neither of which has yet been 
attempted, or their system militates against the justice of God as 
much as ours. 

2. If the guilt of infants consists in their being born with a fal- 
len nature, it follows that they ought not to have been thus born, 
otherwise you say they ought to be guilty: to say a person ought 
to be guilty, is to say, it is right to be guilty, whieh is a contradic- 
tion, and at the same time supposes, that a guilty person deserves 
no punishment, unless we say he deserves punishment for doing 
right. And if infants ought not to have been born with a fallen 
nature, then it was their duty to overturn the laws of nature, and 
defeat the dispensations of God in peopling the earth with the 
descendants of Adam. To deny this, is to say it is not a person's 
duty to keep himself clear of guilt, which at once makes it right 
to do wrong and saps the foundation of all moral principles. 
Our opponents must therefore embrace all these consequences, or 
admit that infants are not guilty, on account of being born with a 
fallen and depraved nature. It remains, 

3. That if they are guilty at all, it must be by virtue of the 
act of imputation, and by nothing else. This seems to be the 
view of their writers on the subject, though they frequently speak 
in a confused way, and it is hard to discover whether they mean 

R r 



310 AN ESSAY ON THE 

that our original guilt arises solely from tlie imputation of Adam's 
sin, or entirely from our degenerate nature, or partly from one 
and partly from the other. 

Dr. Watts clearly puts the question, "may not these sufferings 
of children be for the punishment of the sins of their parents?" 
or, (we might with equal propriety say,) for the sin of our first 
parents.^ 

"Not with any justice or equity," says he, "unless the &ins of 
the parents are imputed to the children." 

Now they believe we actually suffer for the sin of our first pa- 
rent, and at the same time maintain that this could not be inflicted 
"with any justice or equity, unless the sins of the parents are 
imputed to their children." It therefore follows, that if the pa- 
rents' sin had not been thus imputed, all the children of Adam 
would have been clear of guilt, and could not have suiFered "with 
any justice or equity." This imputation, they tell us, is the act of 
Ood; consequently we were never guilty till God made us so, by 
the act of imputation. 

Supposing that God had not imputed Adam's sin to us: we should 
then have been free from misery, it seems, and it would have been 
unjust for infants either to suffer or die. And why so.^ Because they 
would have been clear of guilt, and "no just constitution ca» 
punish the innocent." It is acknowledged then that infants of 
themselves, abstracted from the imputation, are not guilty: there- 
fore when God imputed guilt to them, he charged them with be- 
ing guilty, when they were not so. And is this the way we are 
to reconcile infant sufferings with the justice of God.^ 

The maxim is thought to be incontrovertible, that no just con- 
stitution can punish the innocent: and is it not equally evident, 
that no just constitution can impute guilt to the innocent, in order 
to punish them as guilty creatures when they are not so.? The in- 
quisitors of Spain, we are told, burnt men to death for crimes 
of which they were not guiltyj but those crimes were inyputed t© 
them by the "holy inquisition," and this wa& thought sufficient to 
account for the justice of the sentence! In like manner it appears 
that our opponents, being pressed with Dr. Taylor's axiom, and 
fondly supposing it involves the x\rminians in an "inextricable 
dilemma," leap out of the difficulty themselves, by gravely recur- 
ring to the doctrine of imputation, and thus avoid the " conse- 
quence which no art can set aside," by supposing one unjust ac- 
tion is excused by another. Will they say God has a right to im- 
pute sin to whom he pleases.? And why not an equal right to pun- 
ish whom he pleases, without imputing sin to theni? 



PLAN OP SALVATION, Mi 

Secondly, The argument has no strength to support their conclu- 
sion. 

The attack which I mean to make must of course be levelled 
against the major proposition; for that infants do in fact suffer 
and die, an idiot would acknowledge. Let us then examine this 
formidable principle, that it is unjust for those to sufterand die 
who are not guilty, or in the words of Dr. Taylor, that "no just 
constitution can punish the innocent." 

That justice does not require that the innocent should suffer, is 
indeed self-evident: but that justice admits of it, whenever it re- 
sults from the attribute of goodness, I hope may be established 
fceyond all reasonable doubt. 

Every violation of what justice requires, is unjust: whatever 
accords with what justice admits, but does not require, is benevo- 
lent. (I speak of moral actions.) 

To say justice does not admit of any thing but what it requires, 
is to say justice required of God to bestow all the favours he has 
ever bestowed upon mankind, or else that it did not admit of it: if 
it required it, God would have been unjust had he withheld his 
favours; and if it did not admit of it, he was unjust in bestowing 
them. 

Benevolence has a right to do any thing which justice admits; 
there is no benevolence in merely doing what justice requires; 
therefore if justice admits nothing but what it requires, there is no 
such thing as benevolence in the universe. 

A present evil inflicted, when necessary, to prevent a greater 
evil, or to promote a lasting good to come, is not only just, but 
truly benevolent, whether inflicted on the guilty or the innocent. 
I grant the innocent do not deserve any degree of misery; that is, 
justice does not require it; but justice admits of it, for the best 
reason in the world, and that is, that it is required by goodness. 

AVe will suppose a little child is seized with some disorder 
which threatens to keep it in lingering misery to the end of life: a 
physician proposes by a short but severe operation, to effect a per- 
fect cure: perhaps a leg or an arm must be amputated, or some 
other operation must be endured equally painful: every groan and 
shriek of the innocent little creature cries in the ears of reason 
and humanity that it does not deserve this misery: but it is the 
physician who inflicts it: is he therefore an unjust man? not at all; 
because the present pain will promote an excellent end in future, 
and it is inflicted with a benevolent intention. 



81;=^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

Let us suppose the physiciau afterwards takes hold of another 
child of the same family, who is in perfect health, and eats ofif its 
arm, or performs the same operation that was performed on the 
other, knowing that there was no necessity for it, and that it would 
injure the child through life: would not every ones' indignation 
be raised against him, as an unjust and a cruel monster of barbar- 
ity? And why? Because the misery inflicted did not arise from a 
benevolent intention, nor promote a benevolent end: the child did 
not deserve it, and there was no necessity for it; therefore justice 
was so far from requiring it, that it required the contrary. How 
then could justice admit of the operation, in the former case? 
Was the former child more guilty than the latter? This cannot be 
pretended, unless we are disposed to conclude, very gravely, that 
it was guilty of having the disease. As they were therefore both 
alike as to innocence or guilt, justice did not require that either of 
them should be punished by the physician; but it admitted of it in 
one case, and forbid it in the other, for this reason only, that the 
former case was benevolent, and therefore consistent with justice, 
the latter unjust and cruel, and therefore contrary to it. 

If it can be proved that justice requires ihat all infants should 
suffer and die, we will acknowledge at once that they are guilty. 
But if this dispensation was the result of goodness, it remains that 
their sufferings are consistent with justice, but that it does not 
demand them. That it was the result of benevolence may be made 
evident, I think, by the following arguments. 

1. It will be readily granted that Adam himself, after he sin- 
ned, was guilty: that he by disobedience forfeited all the blessings 
of Paradise, and justly deserved to die. Whence then was he per- 
mitted to enjoy his forfeited life, and the blessings of it, for near- 
ly a thousand years? Was it not through mere grace or favour? 
None surely will presume to deny it. Had not the stroke of justice 
been thus through mercy suspended, we should have never been 
born to suffer and die, unless our opponents will insist that Adam 
would have actually propagated his species after he was dead. 
Therefore onr being born as we now are is the result of benevo- 
lence, sparing our first parents after their transgression. 

2. It is supposed that because infants do in fact suffer and die, 
justice therefore requires it of them: but why is it that good men, 
after being pardoned and fully sanctified, have still to suffer and 
die? Our objectors insist, that all the suffering justice required of 
them was entirely satisfied when the Saviour undertook to die in 
their place. And though we believe this was intended only to sa* 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 313 

tisfy justice for them to be spared; to be placed in a state of proba- 
tion; and to receive the free offers of salvation through Jesus 
Christ; yet we also acknowledge that when the goodness of God 
pardons their sins, and renews them in the spirit of their minds, 
full satisfaction is rendered, and justice requires no more. But 
still they have to die. Is it because they are still guilty, after all 
that God has done for them in redemption, pardon and sanctifica- 
tion? or merely because they were so before? If men, after their 
sins have all been blotted out, are still under condemnation, mere- 
Iv because they were once guilty, they are justitied and condemned 
at the same time, and may be so eternallj'; because it will be for- 
ever true that they were once guilty. We might as well say that 
a man who was once convicted of a crime, but who has received a 
full pardon from the governor, is still guilty and ought to be 
executed. If so, it is plain the governor had no just authority 
to pardon him, otherwise justice would not afterwards re- 
quire his execution. If we say, therefore, that pardoned and sancti- 
fied christians (I mean those who are fully sanctified and sealed 
before death) still deserve death as a penalty, our conclusion is 
founded on the principle, that God has not forgiven all their sins, 
or that he had no just authority to do so. 

3. If it be granted that such christians are now clear of guilt, 
and nevertheless have to die, the argument against infants is de- 
molished, and their sufferings antl death are no proof of their crim- 
inality: and if we conclude, on the contrary, that all christians re- 
main guilty, and therefore that justice requires their death, its re- 
quirements were evidently violated in the case of Enoch, for the 
apostle tells us "Enoch was translated that he should not see 
death." Heb. xi. 5. He moreover tells us, when speaking of the 
general resurrection, that "we which are alive and remain shall 
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord 
in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 
iv. 17. Those Christians who shall be alive at that happy period, 
will be so far from enduring the lingering pains of death, that 
they shall "be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at 
the last trump." 1 Cor. xv. 51. 

4. We would be glad to know whether infants are so guilty, 
that justice requires that they should suffer "death temporal, spir- 
itual and eternal," or whether it requires temporal death only. 

Suppose the last to be true, that thc^- do not deserve damnation, 
but that justice requires their present sufferings and their disso- 
lution. This being granted, these two consequences are unavoida- 



S14, AN ESSAY ON THE 

ble: first, that God shows mercy to actual sinners, but to many in- 
fants he exercises judgment without mercy: for it is no uncommon 
thing for infants to die as soon as they are born; and therefore no 
mercy is exercised towards them; they are not permitted to enjoy 
good in the land of the living; but the whole penalty which they 
deserve is executed upon them the moment they come into the 
world. Secondly, Those who say infants need no Saviour, on sup- 
position that they are innocent, do not avoid the same consequence, 
by supposing them guilty in the degree now under consideration: 
for the argument must rest upon the principle, that the only office 
of a Saviour is to "remove guilt, by bearing the penalty:" and 
that of consequence those who have no guilt, need no Saviour, 
^ow if infants are only so far guilty as to deserve temporal death, 
when they aetHaliy die, the penalty is discharged by their own 
sufferings, and of course, according to the present argument, they 
need no Saviour, because the whole penalty they deserved has 
been actually endured by them, and justice requires no more. 

5. It remains then, that the only ground on which infant guilt 
can prove they need a Saviour, is the supposition that they are so 
guilty as to deserve everlasting damnation. And indeed this ap- 
pears to be the ground generally taken by our adversaries. They 
suppose all infants deserve to be damned, and therefore it is a mer- 
cy that any of them are permitted to pass with no greater punish- 
ments than those which are temporal, or of short duration. 

Dr. Watts introduces this query, in form of an objection: "But 
how are such miseries reigning among his Creatures consistent 
with the goodness of God?" "Perfectly w ell," says he, "if we* 
consider mankind as a sinful, degenerate part of God's crea- 
tion. It is most abundant goodness that they have any com- 
forts left, and that their miseries are not doubled." 

Now if infants die as soon as they are born, what "comforts" 
have they "left.^" And if their present sufferings and death are 
9-11 that they deserve, how is it "abundant goodness that their mis- 
eries are not doubled?" Is God abundantly good merely because 
he does not condemn his creatures, and punish them over again, 
after they have suffered all that they deserve? The doctor's mean- 
ins; evidently was, though he had too oiuch modesty and humani- 
ty to express it openly, that all infants "deserve death, yea, death 
everlasting." This was expressed openly by one author above 
quoted, and it is evident tliat we must, if we would be consistent, 



* Page 73. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3i5r 

adopt the same conclusion, or maintain that infants are not guilty, 
and that they deserve no penalty. 

Let us then suppose for the sake of argument, however gloomy 
and dismal the supposition may be to the feelings of justice and 
humanity, that all infants deserve to be sent into hell forever. I 
suppose our opponents will readily admit that they are not more 
guilty than Adam was. 

Did Adam deserve death temporal and eternal the moment af- 
ter his transgression? or had he a right in justice to live and en- 
joy the blessings of life for almost a thousand years afterwards? 
If he deserved immediate death, it was pure mercy that spared 
him, and had the sentence been instantly executed, the temporal 
sufferings of his posterity would have been thereby prevented, un- 
less it can he proved that the earth would have been peopled by 
his dead body in the grave: and so would their eternal suft'erings 
have been prevented, by the same means, unless it can be proved 
that his soul would have propagated his species in hell. Thus 
it appears, the execution of justice on Adam would have saved 
his posterity from all guilt, or from all the consequences of it; and 
if mercy spared him, to impute sin to his posterity, they were 
mercifully made guilty, and mercifully exposed to " death ever- 
lasting." 

If any should attempt to evade this conclusion, by saying it 
was not through mercy that Adam was spared to enjoy the bless- 
ings of life, but through justice; then he had a right in justice to 
live and enjoy them before the sentence of death, either temporal 
or eternal, should be executed upon him: consequently his posteri- 
ty have an equal right, unless they are more guilty than Adam, 
If they are not more guilty, we would thank our oppdnents to ex- 
plain how it can accord with jnstiee for the sentence to be execut- 
ed on them as soon as they are born, whereby they are deprived 
of those temporal blessings which they have a right in justice to 
enjoy? If they are more guilty than Adam, we would gladly be 
instructed, whether imputed sin makes a person more guilty than 
actual sin, or whether the crimes of Satan were imputed to us, a» 
well as the sin of our first parent. Adam deserved death tempo- 
ral and eternal, but is supposed to have had a right first to enjoy 
the good things of this life; his posterity, w c say, deserved the 
same death, but had no such right to the blessings of this life: 
consequently infants are more guilty, and deserve a more instant 
destruction from the presenea of the Lord, than ever justice re- 
quired of Adam and Eve, who were the first and most responsi- 
ble sinners of the human race. 



Sltt AN EASY ON THE 

6. Lastly, if Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, \v hereby 
they were constituted guilty, and were exposed to the whole pe- 
nalty of justice which Adam himself deserved, then the sin was 
transferred to his posterity, and he became innocent. It was just 
for his guilt and punishment to be transferred to them, otherwise 
they are not guilty and cannot be justly exposed to the penalty: 
and if they deserve "death everlasting" as merited by his sin, and 
should accordingly suffer it, then surely Adam is free; unless some 
extraordinary disputant will undertake to demonstrate that after 
the full demands of justice are accomplished, its demands are ab- 
solutely in full force as they were before; and that the same siuj, 
after being justly imputed, and punished according to its demerit, 
deserv^es to be punished over again, after receiving all that was 
deserved. This is an absolute contradiction; but it must be spared, 
I suppose, because it is the grand pillar on which the whole sys- 
tem of Antinomian divinity is built. 

This, by the way, affords a new argument against the legal no- 
tion of atonement: for if redemption consists in having our sins im- 
puted or transferred to Jesus Christ, whereby he becomes guilty 
and suffers the penalty in our place; then it very evidently fol- 
lows that if Adam's sin is imputed or transferred to his posterity, 
whereby they become guilty, and if they should actually suffer the 
whole penalty which that sin deserves, Adam would thus be re- 
deemed by his posterity in the very way our objectors suppose the 
elect have all been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ 
could not have redeemed us, we are told, without first becoming 
guilty by having our sins imputed to him. "It is incompatible with 
the justice and mercy of God," says Mr Hebden, "to appoint 
afffictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it was 
because the sins of others were imputed to him:" Had Christ re- 
mained innocent then, he could not have suffered consistently 
"with the justice and mercy of God, and therefore could not have 
redeemed the world: consequently the only thing which enabled 
him to do it, was his becoming guilty by imputation, without which 
his dignity of person would have been of no avail. If then the on- 
ly thing which rendered redemption effectual was his suffering 
the penalty, in consequence of having our sin and guilt imputed to 
him, it is evident as day-light that had Adam's posterity suffered 
the penalty, in consequence of having his sin and guilt imputed to 
them, they would have done the very thing for their original 
Father which redeemed the elect, and without which their redemp- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. Sir 

tlon could never be made "compatible with the justice and mercy 
of God."* 

These are the noble fruits of the Antinomian doctrine of ehime-> 
rical imputation! Adam is made innocent by having his guilt con- 
veyed to posterity; — the Israelites, by having their's conveyed to 
the scape goat; — the elect in general, by having their's conveyed 
to Christ: — The Saviour is made guilty by having their sins im- 
puted to him, and then, in suffering exactly what his guilt de- 
serves, he acquires a certain kind of righteousness, which he im- 
mediately transfers to them by another act of imputation, whereby 
they are made righteous in the midst of all their sins! These pro- 
found mysteries have long passed in the world for pure gospel; and 
I suspect it will be my lot to pass for a dreadful heretic, if not for 
a notorious blasphemer, for attempting to remove the veil, and to 
bring some rays of evidence into the enormous temple of obscure 



*The only exception that can be made to this argument is, "that 
Christ's becoming guilty by imputation, though essential to thd 
atonement, was not the only qualification which enabled him to 
redeem his people: he possessed a dignity of person which Adam's 
posterity did not, and this also was essential to his work of re- 
demption." Answer: ^"^ 

This objection supposes that dignity of person renders the mere 
payment of a debt meritorious. As if a prince or sovereign, was 
more praise-worthy or meritorious than any other person, in mere- 
ly paying his debts or discharging an obligation of justice. What 
is the difference with an insolvent debtor, whether his creditor re- 
ceive payment by a mechanic who acts as his surety, or by an em- 
peror? The payment of the debt is the single thing that satisfies 
the creditor, and all the dignity of person required, is an ability 
to pay it; and whether this be done by the interposition of a prince 
or a Hottentot, is the same thing, provided only that the debt be 
paid. 

Now if Adam's posterity had his sin imputed to them, and if 
they had suffered the whole penalty which in justice it deserv- 
ed, the obligation would be as effectually discharged, as if the 
penalty had been suffered by any other person upon a like imputa- 
tion. If God imputed sin to Christ, whereby he became guilty, 
there was no more merit in his suffering in proportion to his guilt, 
than in Adam's posterity suffering in like manner: because when 
a criminal stands before the bar of justice, dignity of person goes 
for nothing, and a king's son, suffering according to his crimes, is 
no more meritorious than a beggar. Therefore the only ground on 
which we can appeal to the dignity of Christ, as our meritorious 
Saviour, is the ground of his sufferings resulting from pure benevo- 
lence: but if so, he never wsls guilty, otherwise we say, benevolence 
consists in a person's suffering according to his guilt, and conse- 
quently according to what he deserves. 



Sid AN ESSAY ON THE 

diviuity, where ^'lady "Wanton" and "Free-wrath" have kept 
quiet possession, and have long concealed their native and incon- 
ceivable deformity. 

Not wishing to stand alone, under such a formidable charge, I 
must close this section by showing that Mr. Fletcher bears an 
equal share of the reproach. 

" As sure then as Christ was not made sin [that is, a sin-offer- 
ing] /or uSf by a speculative imputation of our personal sins^ but 
by being actually made flesh, clothed with our mortality, and 
<sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,' so sure are ^we made the 
righteousness of God in him;' not by a speculative imputation of 
his personal good w orks, but by being 'made partakers of the di- 
vine nature,' begotten of God, and clothed with essential right- 
eousness, which is the case, when we 'put on the new man, who . 
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' 

"Once more: If these branches do not believingly abide in Christ 
the vine, they become such branches in him, as bear not fruit. Nay, 
they bear the poison of unrighteousness; iniquity, therefore, is 
again imputed to them; and so long as they continue in their sin 
and unbelief, they are every moment liable to be 'taken away, cast 
into the fire and burned.' John xv.* 

" This, honoured sir, is the holy imputation of righteousness, 
which we read of in the oracles of God: it hath truth for its found- 
ation; but your imputation stands upon a preposterous supposi- 
tion, that Christ, the righteous, was an execrable sinner, and that 
an elect is perfectly righteous, while he commits execrable ini- 
quity. 

« We firmly believe, that God's imputation, whether of sin or 
righteousness, is not founded upon sovereign caprice, but upon in- 
dubitable truth."t 

Now if God's imputation is founded upon indubitable truth, 
then he never imputed sin to Christ, unless it is indubitably 
true that Christ was a sinner: he never imputed righteousness to 
any man, who in reality and truth was not righteous: he never im- 
puted guilt to any creature, but to those who in reality, and indu- 
bitable truth, were guilty: consequently, he never imputed guilt to 
Christ, or to infants, unless they were positively guilty, indepen- 
dent of that imputation. 

It is true, when we repent and believe the gospel, our sins are 
forgiven, and faith is reckoned to us for righteousness; but Mr 



Vol. 2, page 167, 168. f page 165, 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 319 

Fletcher observes, very justly, (page 165) "As we are partakers 
by generation of Adam's original pollution, before God imputes it 
to us, that is, before he accounts us really polluted; so are we par- 
takers by regeneration of Christ's original righteousness, before 
God imputes righteousness to us, that is, before he accounts us 
really righteous." Thus is Mr. Fletcher involved in my suppos- 
ed heresy, and I take new courage upon finding myself supported 
by so respectable an author. 



SECTION vm. 

Infants are not guilty on account of IJieir natural passions, or pro- 
pensities to evil. 

Having examined the supposed guilt of infants, arising from 
the imputation of Adam's sin, let us now inquire whether they be 
guilty, and deserve to die, together with all christians, on account 
of their original corruption, or internal propensities to sin. It is 
true, that too many christians, after being received into divine fa- 
vour, neglect to adorn the doctrine of God ouv Saviour in all 
things^ and it appears from the words of two apostles, that tem- 
poral death, to some, becomes a penalty which justice requires, on 
account of their sins after justification. Whether the following 
passages do not evidently apply to the present question, I leave 
the reader to judge. 

" Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. And the prayer of 
faith shall save the sick; and if he have committed sins, they shall 
be forgiven him." Jam. v. 13, 15. "If any man see his brother sin 
a sin whieh is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him 
life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: 
I do not say he should pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and 
there is a sin not unto death." 1 John v. 16. 

As to their remaining propensities to evil, though they may 
cause death to be necessary, yet they do not cause any person to 
deserve it as a penalty, unless it can be proved that they constitute 
him guilty. The contrary of this has been already proved; and it is 
evident to any man of reason and candour, that while a christian 
lives without committing sin, he lives without contracting guilt, 



830 AN ESSAY ON TH3S 

whatever his temptations or propensities may be. The distinctiou 
between actual and inward sin I cannot understand, unless it be 
meant to distinguish between the acts of the body, and the acts 
of the mind without the body. It is evident that all sin which 
brings guilt is actual: though there may be no action of the body, 
yet it is a voluntary act of the will, going contrary to a known law 
of God, otherwise it brings no condemnation, seeing "sin is a vo- 
luntary transgression of a known law." 

That evil propensities are sometimes figuratively called sin, 
because they are the original effects of it, has been already grants 
ed and explained^ (section V. of the present chapter,) but every 
argument to prove that they constitute a person guilty, will equally 
prove temptations to do so, because they themselves are proper- 
ly nothing else, and will be comprehended under every intelligible 
definition that can be given of temptation. 

Does temptation consist in presenting some forbidden object to 
the mind, and exciting certain thoughts or feelings which tend to 
lead us to do wrong? Let any man consult his consciousness, and 
say if all his temptations be not of this nature, and if his pro- 
pensities be not exactly of the same tendency. Does temptation 
operate in such a w ay, that it demands an effort, of which we are 
conscious, to keep from yielding to its influence.^ So do these evil 
propensities. Is temptation an occasion of, or an enticement to siu.^ 
So are these propensities. Is a man clear of guilt, however strong 
his temptations may be, till he consents to do what he knows is 
wrong? So he is when he feels these propensities. But is not a 
man morally defiled and guilty for having evil tempers and dis- 
positions in his nature? Answer: 

If by evil tempers, we are to understand pride or malice, and 
the like, that soul in which they predominate is certainly guiltyj 
but if we only mean that he feels a propensity to pride or malice, 
he is not guilty on this account. 

A man is praised and flattered by another: he yields to ike in« 
fluence of this adulation, uutil he habitually thinks more highly 
of himself than he ought to think. This is an evil temper, and in 
this he is guilty: why so? because he was so far from resisting the 
temptation, that he entered into it, by a voluntary act of his will; 
indulging the vain thoughts, and suffering them to lodge within 
him. 

The same may be said of malice: a man is insulted, and feels a 
propensity to seek revenge: he yields to this temptation, rumi- 
nates upon the provocation, till it is greatly magnified ia his ima^ 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 321 

ginatioTi, and thus sinful anger, or perhaps settled malice, takes the 
ascendency in his heart. Such a man is guilty before God, for this 
plain reason, that his will, instead of resisting the temptation, 
voluntarily yielded and consented to its influence. He indulged 
malice, which implies an evil intention, or a desire of injury to 
his neighbour, in which consists the essence of criminality. 

But suppose, when the man felt a propensity to pride or malice, 
he had resisted it with laborious diligence till he had gained the 
victory, and the temptation was no longer felt: to pronounce him 
guilty in this, is to say that guilt consists, not in an evil wish or 
intention, but either in being tempted, or in resisting temptation, 
in order to maintain a good intention, and to prevent an evil one 
from entering into the soul. 

Habitual malice is indeed criminal in a high degree, not because 
a man has a propensity to it, but because it carries in its bosom a 
habitual or perpetual consent of the will to that which the under- 
standing knows, or may know, to be wrong. 

But suppose the propensity leads tlie person into a malicious 
temper, because he does not know such a temper to be wrong, and 
therefore does not try to resist it: is this person guilty.^ If his igno- 
rance of duty in this case, arose from a voluntary neglect of the 
means of knowledge, he is guilty; because it included an intention 
not to pursue the knowledge of duty, when God had put that know- 
ledge within his power. But if his ignorance was invincible, the 
indulgence of passion, though voluntary, was no crime; otherwise 
the beasts of the earth are criminals, for the voluntary indulgence 
of their passions, and any person may be sentenced to death for the 
violation of a precept which he knows not, and cannot know. 

"No person is accountable for what is not in his power." This 
is a first principle of morals, which governs the laws of all nations 
under heaven; and the contrary of it is shocking to the common 
sense of a savage. To deny this principle, is to demolish the found- 
ation of all moral distinctions, and to open a wide door of athe- 
ism to the world. Tyrants may make what laws they please for 
mankind, and no person could prove it unjust for them to burn 
their subjects to death for not flying to the moon, if it be true that 
men are accountable for that which is not in their power. 

Infants are supposed guilty because they have been born the de- 
scendants of Adam, or because they have evil propensities or pas- 
sions: but they are not guilty for these things if it be true, that no 
person is culpable for what is not in his power. To make them 
guilty \ye must deny this principle; and if we deny it, the couse- 



3^2 AN ESSAY ON THE - 

quence will indeed follow that infants may be guilty. But it would 
equally follow, tliat]angels may deserve damnation for not creat- 
ing worlds, men and women for not visiting the planet Jupiter, and 
beasts, birds and fishes, for not understanding the elements of 
Euclid, or the profound speculations of sir Isaac Newton. Deny 
the first principle above stated, and we may safely defy the world 
to disprove these conclusions. Acknowledge it, and we may in 
vain muster up arguments to prove infants guilty, till we first 
prove they have done some criminal action which they had power 
to leave undone. 

But it may be said, suppose a sinner should increase his evil 
habits, till he has no more power to resist them, will it not follow, 
if there can be no guilt where there is no power, that such a per- 
son continued to multiply his crimes, till he had sinned himself 

innocent? This argument is urged by Dr. J- * and it deserves 

our deliberate attention. His words are: 

"If a corrupt bias makes sin to be necessary, and consequently 
to be no sin, then tlie more any man is inclined to sin, the less sin 
he can commit: and as that corrupt bias grows stronger, his actual 
sinning becomes more necessary: and so the man instead of grow- 
ing more wicked grows more innocent." 

This metaphysical argument is very plausible: but a little at- 
tention, I presume, will enable us to unravel it. 

We will suppose A and B began their career with evil propen- 
sities exactly equal, and with an equal degree of knowledge and 
power. They were then alike responsible for their conduct, be- 
cause they stood on equal ground. At the end of ten years A 
has sinned twice as much as B, and of course has contracted pro- 
pensities twice as strong as the other, and thereby diminished his 
power, and retains only half as much as his fellow. Is he there- 
fore less guilty than B.'' He is not. He is more guilty in every 
respect. First, his acts of w ickedness are double, and the whole 
guilt of them are upon him. Secondly, he is a greater sinner in his 
disposition, because he has had a greater degree of evil intention, 
or resolution to sin, otherwise his companion would have gone as 

far as himself. Mr. J will certainly agree with me in this 

conclusion: wherein do we then differ from each other.^ The dif- 
ference consists in this: he concludes this man's wickedness and 
guilt arise partly from his sinful acts, partly from his evil inten- 
tion or resolution to sin, and partly from his present evil propen- 



*VindicatioD,p. 68,&c.—See^Mr. Wesley on original sin, p. 155. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 323 

sities contracted thereby: 1 conclude, his guilt consists, not in his 
enfeebled and disordered state, but in that evil disposition and 
conduct which brought him into it. 

Suppose they now commit a certain crime: the act with both is 
the same, and we will suppose they both have the same degree of 
evil intention or purpose of mind to do wrong: now admitting 
their guilt to be equal in this particular crime, it follows that 
there was no sin in the strength of propensity, abstract from the 
evil intention, because this propensity is twice as strong in one as 
in the other, when their crime is exactly equal. Will any one 
say the propensity and the evil intention are inseparable? 

Suppose A begins to yield to the reproofs of the spirit, and re- 
solves, like the prodigal, to return to his father's house. Now a 
struggle arises: his propensity leads him to do wrong, and his re- 
solution opposes it. His intention now is to do right, and this leads 
him to oppose that "evil bias" which is drawing in a contrary di- 
rection. Is it right for him to resist this corrupt bias.'* If so, while 
resisting it he is doing what he ought to do, and therefore there is 
no sin in this action, otherwise you say it is a sin for a man to do 
l*ight. But he felt the propensity at the same time, because he was 
resisting it: consequently the evil bias does not constitute a person 
guilty, however strong it may be, when unaccompanied M'ith any 
voluntary consent of the mind. 

In the progress of reformation A is suddenly beset with a temp- 
tation to drunkenness: his propensity arises in all its strength and 
violence: he struggles manfully against it for a little time, but his 
resolution fails; he yields, and commits the crime. Meantime B 
comes along, seeking an occasion to get drunk, witli **a regular and 
fixed purpose of soul" to do it the first opportunity: he finds an 
opportunity and immediately enters into the extravagancies of in- 
toxication. Now tell me who was the greater criminal in this par- 
ticular case. If the former, the consequence is, that the man who 
is overtaken in a fault is a greater sinner than he who with a fixed 
purpose of evil, deliberately seeks an occasion to commit it: if the 
latter, it follows that criminality does not consist in the strength of 
our corrupt bias, but in the degree of our wicked intention. 

As to the supposition that a sinner may continue his wicked 
course till he has no power, so that it is impossible for him to sus- 
pend his sinful actions for a moment, it remains to be proved that 
there are any such sinners in the universe. 

If there were such an one, I should not hesitate to conclude 
that he is no longer a moral agent, and is no more accountable for 



n2i> AN ESSAY ON THE 

his present actions than any man in hedlam. Aecordlug ta 
Dr. J 's argument, tliis man has become innocent; but accord-* 
ing to truth, he is guilty of all the enormous crimes which have 
mined his moral faculties. ''He has filled up the measure of his 
iniquities," and if his soul is so full of sin that it can hold no more, 
does it follow that he is less guilty than he was before? It does not. 
This sophistical conclusion has nothing to rest upon, but the sup- 
position that a sinner does not carry the guilt of his old sins along' 
with him. Let Mr. J prove that some sinners (devils if you 

please) have lost all power to suspend their evil acts, and are dri- 
ven forward by the. same necessity that a deserted vessel is car- 
ried by wind and tide; he may then conclude, and we will instant- 
ly yield to the conclusion, that those persons have become so guil- 
ty, that it is impossible for their guilt to be enlarged. This conse- 
quence we readily adopt, because it is supported by the plain dic- 
tates of common sense. 

Let us suppose that your servant, to avoid the trouble of exe- 
cuting your commands, takes a sledge-hammer and breaks both 
his legs: we all agree that the crime is enormous, and he is 
guilty in a high degree; but you insist that he is not only guilty on 
account of the action he has done, but is very much to blame be- 
cause he does not walk with broken legs. Common sense 
decides, that though he is really guilty of defrauding you of all 
the service due you to the end of life, yet the whole of that guilt 
arises from the voluntary action which unqualified him for your 
service, and that he is in no degree guilty for not mending his 
broken legs, when it is not in his power. 

It has been often said, '• if we destroy our power to obey, this 
does not destroy God's right to demand obedience." I answer, 
your right to your servant's obedience, is the ground of justice for 
you to punish him in proportion to his guilt in depriving you of 
that obedience. If the breaking of his legs destroyed your right to 
demand obedience, you would have no right to punish him for it. 
If your servant owed you obedience for ten years, the act of break- 
ing his legs has as eft'ectually deprived you of it, as if he had regu- 
larly neglected your commands for ten years: this proves the enor- 
mity of his offence, and you have a right to punish him according- 
ly. Now if you execute the penalty upon him, according to his de- 
merit, what other demand have you for the obedience required.^ If 
you have a right to-receive the obedience, for the neglect of which 
you have inflicted punishments to the full demand of justice, it fol- 
lows that your original right was double; and if you could demand 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 355 

the obeiUenee, after requiring the whole penalty which justice 
could demand for the neglect of it, with equal truth it might be 
said, that you had a right to inflict the whole penalty, after re- 
ceiving the full obedience which justice allowed you, and en- 
joined on your servant to perform. 

If any men or devils have sinned till their moral faculties are 
entirely ruined, and their power of self-government is totally de- 
stroyed, the enormous guilt lies upon them, of utterly unqualify- 
ing themselves for God's service forever' He had a right to their 
service forever, of which they have deprived him, by totally ru- 
ining the moral power of their souls: hence the deep enormity of 
their offences; and hence the justice of that sentence which de- 
nounces everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power. 

But will any one say, that God, besides punishing them in pro- 
portion to their guilt, has a right to blame them, and augment 
their torment, for not breaking the gates of hell, and coming back 
to his service, when it is not in their power? No: such an absurdi- 
ty is shocking to conscience, an insult to every principle of justice 
and equity, and we may safely defy our opponents to produce any 
proof of it, from the oracles of God, or from any other source of 
evidence. Let the rubbish be removed, and it still remains true 
and clear as the meridian sun, that no being in the universe is cut* 
pahle for what is not in his power. 

Some have attempted to evade the conclusion, by distinguishing 
between a natural and a moral inability: those devils, they would 
say, are still augmenting their guilt, because they do not choose to 
reform, if they had the power. I answer, they have power to 
c/ioose differently from what they do, or they have not: if they have, 
I grant they are continuing to augment their guilt; if they have 
not, the moral necessity by which they are driven, is as absolute as 
natural necessity: and it is as much out of their power to choose that 
which is right, as to perform it. 

Suppose all the horrors of hell, and the glories of heaven, were 
presented tamy view at once; and that God should demUnd of me 
to choose this eternal torment^in preferenceto everlasting happiness: 
I feel that it would be as impossible for me to do it, as to pull the 
moon from her orbit. There is not a man upon earth, or a devil 
in hell, that absolutely chooses misery for its own sake, and would 
rather be miserable than happy. Though they choose sin in pre- 
ference to holiness, it is not because they are unwilling to be hap- 
• py, for our Saviour tells us, that unclean spirits are continuallv 
Tt 



S2d AN ESSAY ON THE 

going about seeking rest, though they are not seeking holiness: 
and we know the same is true with respect to all sinners in the 
world: a plain proof surely, that they do not choose sin because 
they love misery, which is absolutely impossible, but because they 
hate the difficulty of reformation, and are under a delusive notion, 
that sin is better than righteousness. Milton represents the devil 
as saying, "Evil be thou my good:" and it is evident, that his 
choice of moral evil is founded upon some delusive notion ofgoodr> 
otherwise he would not be seeking rest in the constant practice of 
unrighteousness. 

Whether any being has lost, or ever will so lose all power of 
Tolition, as to be totally unable to alter the direction of his choice, 
or to suspend his evil acts for a moment, I do not take upon my- 
self to determine: 1 know of no evidence for or against it, in any 
part of the creation. 

What 1 contend for is, that if there be such a creature any 
where, there is no more power of action, or of optional choice in 
him, than there is in a stone that is rolling down a hill: they both 
move on, in a certain way, but it is by the same fatality, and it is 
very evident that the stone is in itself as completely passive when 
rolling down the hill, as when lying still upon the ground. So is 
the devil, if his power of volition be totally abolished, and if he be 
passive as a vessel that is carried by wind and tide. 

Itis as unjustto demand a person to choose when it is not in his 
power, as to demand of him to act when it is not in his power. If 
you command your servant to take a journey to the moon, the act 
is not in his power, and you cannot punish him for disobedience 
without being a tyrant. If you command him to love coals of fire 
better than bread, and to eat them in the place of it, in this case, 
though there would be no natural impossibility in his doing the out- 
ward action, yet the choice, as it related to the regulation of his af- 
fection, would be impossible, and the demand as tyrannical as the 
former. He might, through fear of a greater evil, choose to eat 
coals of fire,but to love them better than bread, would be absolute- 
ly impossible. 

For me to blame or punish my child for not setting his affection 
on things above, when he could have no conception of such things, 
would be as ridiculous as to blame him for not flying to the clouds. 
The latter implies a natural impossibility, the former a moral im- 
possibility, both of which are equally absolute and irresistible. 

We should regard with a just sense of indignation, the wretch 
that would burn his cattle to death, for not voluntarily assembling 



PLAN OF SALVATION. %it 

three times a week for the purpose of public worship: yet they 
have a natural power to assemble themselves together; but their 
obedience to the injunction would be morally impossible, because 
they have no conception of divine worship, nor consequently of 
their master's commandment. 

If the devil has lost all power, so that it is impossible for him 
to have the least controul over any of his thoughts or actions, his 
case is most deplorable: and though he alone is to blame for the 
whole, yet his guilt consists, not in the condition in which he now 
is, but in the voluntary acts of wickedness which brought him 
there. The whole of his guilt consists in running into the dismal 
gulf; and eternal justice will never blame him for not coming 
out, when it is not in his power. It is enough for him to endure 
the punishment due to his voluntary crimes: heaven will never 
augment his misery by an unjust and unmerciful imputation of 
crimes, in which he was as perfectly passive and involuntary as a 
stone, and therefore as incapable of moral responsibility for his 
present actions; 



SECTION IX. 

Of man's natural inability to do good. 

It will be said, if man be utterly unable to recover himself, 
then all sinners, while in a natural state, (if the above doctrine be 
true,) remain innocent and excusable in the midst of all their 
crimes, because they have no power do any thing that is good. 
Answer: 

First, that man, since the fall, has no natural power to recover 
himself, and change his own heart, is readily granted: but that 
either men or devils are totally destitute of all power to suspend 
any of their wicked actions, remains yet to be proved. When a 
man tells a lie, blasphemes his Maker, or steals his neighbour's 
goods, will any one say he had not a natural power to tell the 
truth, to keep his tongue from blasphemy, or his hands from in- 
truding upon his neighbour's property at midnight.^ True, say 
you, he had a natural power to avoid these things, if he would; 
but he had no power to choose otherwise than he did; therefore it 



3:38 AN ESSAY ON THE 

was morally impossible for him to do so, and yet he was guilty, 
and punishable by the magistrate, because he was under no natu- 
ral necessity of perpetrating those crimes. This is the sophistry 
that has too long imposed upon the world, and deluded thousands 
into the metaphysical refinements of predestination. 

Suppose two men, of equal bodily powers, go together and kill 
an innocent neighbour; one is in possession of his rational and 
moral faculties, and the other is totally delirious: now I presume 
any court of justice in the world would condemn one as a murder- 
er, and decide that the other is no criminal, and deserves not to be 
punished as such. But they both had a natural power to stay at 
home, and their natural power was the same in degree: consequent- 
ly the judicial decision would be founded on the principle, that 
the delirious person, being morally incapable of self-government, 
was no longer an accountable agent. thoKgh he was as free from 
the controul of natural necessity, as the man Mho is pronounced a 
piurderer. 

If natural power alone renders a being morally accountable, 
then surely the beasts of the field are proper subjects of moral 
government; for they all possess natural power, and in many in- 
stances a higher degree of it than man. Does not a lion or atyger 
possess far more natural power than an infant.^ And is natural 
power alone the ground of moral responsibility.^ Then if an in- 
fant deserves damnation, it is certain those beasts of the wilderness 
deserve it in a tenfold degree. If natural power alone is not the 
ground of mor^l responsibility, then it follows inevitably that sin- 
ners possess something more, that is, the moral power of choice, 
or self-government, otherwise they are not responsible for their 
actions. "No art can set aside the consequence." 

By the distinction between natural and moral power, we com- 
monly mean the power to act and the power to choose; but we 
ought carefully to observe that the former word is ambiguous: it is 
sometimes limited to the natural actions of the body; at other 
times every choice, or volition, is called an action of the mind, 
A less equivocal distinction would be, to say a natural power con- 
sists in being able to perform natural actions; amoral power, in be- 
ing able to perform moral actions. The latter is inseparable from a 
conception of the rules of moral obligation, the foundation of 
which is, that "no being is responsible for what is not in his power, 
and that all beings capable of understanding the rules of duty are 
bound to conform to them so far as their power extends." To 
clear this matter a little farther, let us weigh the follow ing par- 
ticulars. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 329 

i. A power to do any thing, essentially includes a power to 
ieave it undone, otherwise it is done by necessity, which is no 
power at all. To say a necessary action of any being is perform- 
ed by the power of that being, is to say a stone possesses power 
when rolling down a hill, or that the action of a man's blood, or 
the regular and involuntary beating of his heart, is performed by 
the power of that man. 

2. The proper notion of power, therefore, is the liberty of op- 
tion, to perform an action, or to omit the performance of it. If he 
cannot omit it, he has no power over it, but acts by uncontrollable 
necessity. Consequently any being who has power, has liberty iu 
exact proportion; and he who has no liberty has no power. 

3. Of course it is impossible for any being to have power to do 
an action, without having power to choose to do it. Have I power 
to rise from this seat, and walk across the room? If I have, I pos- 
sess power at the same time to omit it, and continue where I am; 
but it is impossible for me to walk and sit still at the same timej 
it is equally so, for me to determine and at the same time not de- 
termine to rise and walk: the volition or determination must neces- 
sarily precede the action, unless it be said I walk against my will, 
and then surely 1 am compelled by some other power, or else I 
will to do a thing, and at the same time will not to do it, which is 
a palpable contradiction. You command your servant, saying, 
come here immediately: he answers, sir, J ic^iZZ come immediately; 
but I will not come. You look at him with astonishment, aiid can- 
not conceive what he means. Does he mean that he will come to 
you, and stay where he is at the same time.^ If he stay away, you 
conclude he spoke a falsehood in saying "I will come immediately;-' 
and if he come to you immediately, he spoke false in saying "1 
will not come." But neither of these would be a falsehood, what- 
ever his action might be, if it be really true that a man can will to 
do an action, and at the same time will not to do it. A man may do 
many things against his desire, propensity or inclination; but to 
do any thing voluntarily against his will, is absolutely impossible, 
and involves a plain contradiction. 

But if a man cannot act against his will, then he must ivill be- 
fore he can act: consequently if he has no power, or liberty of op- 
tion, to choose or determine, he has no power over the action which 
depends upon that determination. 

4. Suppose sinners have a natural power to act riglit, or to 
avoid acting wrong, but at the same time have no power to alter 
their choice or determination: and suppose al.'io, for the sake of ar- 



330 AX ESSAY ON THE 

giiment, that a person may perform an action, without being abte 
to choose to perform it: these persons, we say, have no power to 
choose otherwise than they do; but they have power to act other- 
wise, and this is the ground of their condemnation: if so, they are 
condemned for not acting against their will; and if they should al- 
ter their actions, while their will and determination is the same, 
the whole ground of their guilt, as to their present actions, would 
be entirely removed. Thus our opponents are forced to ^ay the 
true service of God consists in a man's acting according to the 
commandments, while his will and determination are against them, 
or to acknowledge that their argument founded on the distinction 
between natural and moral power, at once falls to the ground. 

5. As to devils, or disembodied spirits, there can be no distinc- 
tion between their power to choose and their power to act: because 
all their actions are intellectual, and consist in the operations of 
the will, controlling and directing the thoughts, judgments and 
rational operations of the understanding, as also the management 
of the affections in loving, hating, hoping, fearing, and the like. 
Their power to choose and to act cannot therefore be separated, 
even in thought, unless we suppose them to be corporeal, or to 
have power to influence the elements; of course their power con- 
sists solely in their liberty of will; and if they have no liberty they 
have no power, and their thoughts run on in an invariable chan- 
nel, as a river runs into the sea. 

6. 1^ sinners have no power by nature to do good, it is neverthe- 
less possible for them to be less wicked than they are; and so far 
as men or devils have power to omit their wicked actions, so far 
they are accountable; and every avoidable act of evil, proportion- 
a.bly increases their guilt. Brutes are clear of guilt, not because 
they have no power of choice, for they evidently have a degree ef 
natural or animal liberty, but because they have no conception of 
moral principles, and no power to acquire such a conception. If 
they understood the rules of morality, and choose to violate them, 
when they had power to do otherwise, they would be guilty as 
well as we; but having no conception of this kind, they are desti- 
tute of moral liberty, properly so called, and are not accountable 
for their actions. 

7. So far as any being chooses by necessity so far his liberty is 
abridged, and if his choice be thus controlled in all things, he is 
destitute of power, and has no more agency than a stone or a clod 
of earth: every tliought rises in his mind as necessarily as matter 
gravitates or tends to the centre, and he is as unable to alter the 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 331 

direetion of a single desire, judgment, idea or eonception, as I am 
now unable to direct the sun, or inrert the order of the stars of 
Leaven. AVhether there be any creature in this state, or whe- 
ther it do not imply a total destruction of an intellectual nature, is 
beyond my comprehension, and I must let it rest undecided, as a 
matter which is too wonderful for me. 

Several other questions would rise out of this metaphysical sub- 
ject, into which my objector has led me; but this is not the proper 
place to consider them, and I must at present omit them and return 
to the objection.* 

Secondly, man, in the present objection, is considered as being 
left in the ruins of the fall, abstracted from all interpositions of 
grace, and then it is concluded that he is totally unable to do any 
thing that is good. But supposing grace had not interposed in his 
fiivour, Adam would have been immediately condemned before 
any mortal descended fromf his loins. Therefore, as our personal 
existence was the effect of divine goodness in redemption, we are 
not left absolutely in a state of nature; but ^'the grace of God which 
bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that, 
denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, 
and righteously, and godly, in this present world.*' Admitting 
then that man has no power to do good in a state of nature, unas- 
sisted by the grace of God; yet the power to do good is restored to 
all men through Jesus Christ, and therefore those who abuse this 
gracious liberty are guilty and justly condemned; "for this is the 
condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved 
darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." 

But it does not hence follow that those are now guilty for not 
doing good, who have lost the power, and never had it restored to 
them. Did God ever require of men to change their hearts and 



* The doctrine of necessity is advocated by president Edwards, 
who dwells largely upon the argument which Dr. Reid tells us 
was first invented by Mr. Hobbes, and who offers several other ar- 
guments, with no inconsiderable degree of ingenuity, in opposition 
to the power of optional choice, and in defence of universal fatali- 
ty. I omit a particular examination of his arguments at presenl, 
for these two reasons: 1. It would lead into toa great a digression 
from the chief design of the present essay. 2. The olyections he 
urges against moral agency, have been fully examined, and re- 
futed in a masterly manner by Dr. Reid. See his fourth essay on 
the active powers "of the liberty of moral agents." Am<Tiean edi- 
tion, vol. 2. page 399. 

t See section VL of this chapter. 



333 AN ESSAY ON THE 

prepare themselves for heaven, without the assistance of his grace.*' 
Did he ever blame them for rejecting eternal life before it was of- 
fered to them? Did he ever tantalize any with the offer who he 
knew had no power to receive it? Or condemn them for burying 
a talent which they never had? 

It may be objected again, "that infants, being clear of guilt, 
need no salvation through Christ: as all their moral defilement is 
consistent with perfect innocence, they are naturally tit for hea- 
ven, and therefore have nothing to do with the Redeemer, seeing 
his errand upon earth was to seek and save that which was lost." 
The answer is easy: 

1. Though infants themselves are not guilty, yet the guilt of 
their original father would have prevented their personal exis- 
tence, and consequently all the blessings of life and eternal salva- 
tion, had it not been for the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. 
Therefore though Adam stood in need of a Saviour to remove 
guilt from his soul, which infants do not, yet they are, to counter- 
balance it, beholden to redemption for their very breath and being, 
which Adam originally was not. 

2. Had not Adam been redeemed, his posterity, though not lost 
with him in everlasting misery, would nevertheless have been for- 
ever lost from that conscious existence and eternal felicity which 
was originally intended for them. And are they under no obliga- 
tion to Jesus Christ, for saving them from such a loss, and bring- 
ing them into a happy existence? If not, Adam was under no 
obligation to God for his creation. To dwell forever in the regions 
of despair, is doubtless the greatest loss that can be imagined; 
hut th€ gloomy silence of non-existence would also be such a loss, 
that men or angels would shudder at the prospect. As to the no- 
tion, that all mankind had some mysterious existence in Adam's 
loins, and were after the fall exposed to some kind of unconscious 
damnation in him, w hich they must have suffered for their part of 
the guilt, if a Saviour had not interposed, 1 confess I cannot un- 
derstand it. Is it any thing difi'erent from an absolute privation of 
life, oris it another method of expressing the same thing? I sup- 
pose nobody will say we were really alive in Adam, or that we 
were conscious and unconscious at the same time. Many have 
adopted this inexplicable chimera, 1 suspect, to accommodate them- 
selves to the hypothesis of reprobation, that all mankind were real- 
ly guilty of Adam's sin: but they wish at the same time to avoid 
the consequence of it, that infants deserve to dwell with ever- 
lasting burnings. Those who are guilty, surely deserve punish- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. i^^ 

mentj therefore after taking for granted that millions of creatiired 
in Adam's loins were in some sort guilty, they conclude they ought 
in some sort to be damned: but as they cannot adopt the hon ors 
of Antinomiau free-wrath, they seem to be under the necessity of 
inventing some kind of fantastical damnation, unsupported by 
scripture, and inconceivable by the human understanding. Had 
Adam been condemned and executed according to the sentence, his 
posterity would have never lived either in heaven or in hell: they 
would not have been lost in conscious misery, but they would have 
been lost to all life and conscious happiness, and therefore the ex- 
istence and subsequent enjoyments of Adam's posterity, iich 
were forfeited, are restored "through the redemption that is in 
Jesus Christ," 

8. We do not affirm that infants are naturally fit for heaven; but 
we affirm that as nothing but positive guilt can lit a person for hell^ 
infants will never be fit for it while justice has any place in the 
creation. Is there no medium between being fit for heaven, and fit 
foe hell! I hope no man will say the beasts and the fowls of the 
firmament are exactly fit for hell; or that they are naturally fit for 
heaven. 

It is evident the children of Adam all come into the world na- 
turally fit for this state of probation which God has appointed for 
us; and that some change must take place to fit us for any other re» 
gion. Though it would be unjust for infants to be punished as 
criminals, yet they have no natural right to eternal happiness, but 
a gracious right through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. And 
they are naturally unfit for heaven, not because they are guilty, 
but because heaven is intended as a place of unobstructed enjoy- 
ment, where temptation shall never enter. If they were taken there 
with natural propensities to evil, they would be placed in a state 
of perpetual temptation, and would be in constant danger of fall- 
ing into sin: therefore God prepares them for heaven before he 
. takes them thither, not because justice had any charge of crimi- 
nality against them, but because goodness delights to place them 
in a state of complete enjoyment, far above the regions of evil, 
where no trial or temptation shall ever disturb their tranquillity. 

In what way God produces or works this change in those who 
die in infancy, we may be unable to comprehend: nor is this won- 
derful, since we cann ot comprehend the manner in which he ope- 
rates upon the minds of men, or how he upholds and governs the 
general system of the universe. A change produced in the infant 
mind involves no contradiction, anj more than a change wrought 
IJ u 



334 AN ESSAY ON THE 

in any other mind: its possibility is conceivable, and the evidence 
is clear, unless we have not clear evidence that heaven is intended 
as a place of perfect enjoyment, free from every kind of evil. 

Whatever be the way, in which this change may be produced^ 
it is evidently a great blessing, because it raises us above the 
force of temptation, and secures us from the influence of sin and 
misery: this blessing, therefore, as well as all the glories of heaven, 
come upon infants in consequence of the mediation of the Saviour, 
none of which they ever would have enjoyed, had not his inter- 
position rescued Adam from that instant destruction which he had 
incurred by his rebellion. 

The millions who have left omr polluted region, hefore they 
knew their right hand from their left, w ill therefore join with the 
innumerable company of heaven, to sing the song of praise and 
thanksgiving "to Him that hath redeemed us by his own blood, 
and hath made us kings and priests to God and his Father: to him 
be glory and dominion forever and ever." Amen. 



SECTION X. 

Ji consequence of the doctrine established in the foregoing sections y 
that death is necessary in the case of infants, but is net a penalty. 

If the suffering and death of infants, and sanctified christians^ 
he the result of goodness, then it was necessary they should suf- 
fer and die, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good 
to come. 

This consequence is genuine, and we adopt it without hesita- 
tion. To say punishment is inflicted on any creature through be- 
nevolence, and yet that it is totally unnecessary, and tends not to 
the creature's advantage, is quite absurd and contradictory. 

That the afilictions of the righteous are intended for their good, 
and answer gracious ends under the divine administration, is evi- 
dent from innumerable texts of scripture, and especially from the 
unequivocal declaration of St. Paul to the Corinthians: "Our light 
afiliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more 
exceeding and eternal weight of glory." 2 Cor. iv. 17. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 830 

God is not only represented as a kind father, who chastens hischil« 
dren for their good, which implies a fault on their part; but the' 
Lord Jesus is frequently called our physician, whose office leads 
him to give pain for a moment, because it is necessary; and this 
may be done, and often is done by physicians, when there was no 
previous fault in the subject, but merely because there was a dis- 
order, which the afftiction or momentary pain had a tendency to 
remove. 

A kind parent may subject his children to a degree of misery, 
to promote three benevolent ends. (1.) For a correction of their 
faults. (2.) For their trial and establishment in good principles. 
(3.) For the removal of any disease or disorder in their constitu- 
tion. 

These are the ends of affliction, when the pain is produced from a 
benevolent intention towards the suffering subjects. When punish- 
ments are inflicted on criminals, without any regard to the crim- 
inals themselves, but purely for the sake of others whom their 
crimes have injured, this is the operation of justice. Where the 
design is to defend the injured, and at the same time to reform the 
offender, this is the joint operation of justice and compassion. 

These things being premised, we have now several inquiries to 
make: 

1. Are infants and christians punished with death, and with 
foregoing afflictions, merely and solely for the sake of defending 
others from the influence of their crimes.^ If so, they are punish- 
ed exactly for the same ends for which devils are punished in hell. 

2. Are they punished to defend the rights of others, and at the 
same time to produce in themselves a conviction of their guilt, that 
they may be influenced to reform.^ If so, they are punished for the 
same ends for which notorious offenders are sometimes loaded 
with irons, or kept in confinement for a term of years. Or for the 
same ends for which the special judgments of God sometimes fall 
upon a wicked man, and sometimes upon a wicked nation. 

3. Are their afflictions to be considered as the chastisements of 
a kind father for the correction of their faults? That christians 
are often thus punished, is evident both from scripture and expe- 
rience; but there is no shadow of evidence that this will hold res- 
pecting infants, unless it can be proved, first, that they have com- 
mitted faults, and, secondly, that their sufterings are calculated to 
bring them to a sense of them, that they may thereby be influenced 
to repent and be more diligent in the ways of righteousness. 



336 AN ESSAY ON THE 

If a parent should chastise his new-born infant, under pretence 
of correcting its faults, we should justly consider him as an unna- 
tural and barbarous tyrant. And our judgment would be perfectly 
correct, because it would be founded upon these two obvious rea- 
sons: (1.) that the said child was incapable of committing any 
fault, and (2.) that it was equally incapable of conceiving for 
what end the punishment was inflicted. After its understanding 
is sufficiently opened, discipline may be exercised from a benevo- 
lent intention, because it is now able to conceive the design of it, 
and has in some degree the power of self-government; but to sup- 
pose aparent may consistently and righteously chastise a new-born 
infant fbr its faults, is highly absurd and ridiculous: how much 
inore sp, to impute such conduct to the all-wise and Almighty Fa- 
ther of universal being? 

Neither can it be supposed that infants are punished for a trial 
of their virtue; because they have no conception of the thing in- 
tended, and are incapable of a moral influence, until their under- 
standings are enlarged sufficiently to have some conception of an 
pbligatipn. 

Grod certainly* has some end in view, in subjecting infants to 
misery and death, otherwise he afflicts them for nothing, to sup- 
pose which, is not only to contradict his moral attributes, but to 
charge him with whimsical caprice and folly. 

The dilemma is therefore unavoidable, that God has no more re- 
gard to their benefit, in their afflictions, than he has to the benefit 
of devils in their's, or that their sufferings are intended for their 
advantage; and the only advantage we are able to conceive is that 
their sufferings are designed to counteract the original consequen- 
ces of Adana's transgression, so far as they have descended to pos- 
terity. 

Nor let any, take occasion to infer that this involves the doctrine 
pf a death-purgatory, if the design of such a purgatory is under- 
stood to be the removal or purging away of our guilt: for this takes 
f(fr granted that infants are guilty, which has been abundantly re- 
futed. 

That death is intended to counteract the eff*ects of sin, both in 
infants and christians, must be admitted, or else it is utterly un- 
necessary, is never advantageous, and therefore can never, in any 
^ase, be considered as a blessing. 

Will it be said that it is a blessing, because it puts an end to all 
fiurmiseries? This is saying plainly that no part of the misery itr 
^elf is a blessing, but merely that the end of it is so: that is, thai - 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 337 

the affilction in itself has no good eifect, and was never so intend- 
ed, but merely that our deliverance from it is a blessing. Was 
not the light affliction, which is but for a moment, intended to re- 
move the causes of misery, by removing those natural and invo- 
luntary propensities, which would otherwise continue still to be a 
perpetual source of temptation? Or shall we say that all christians, 
who are saved from their sins, are at the same time delivered 
from all natural propensities to evil? If they are, I would be glad 
to know how the pains of death are still necessary, how they pro- 
duce any good effect in our favour, — and why dying christians are 
to receive the bitter cup as a blessing from the hand of their hea- 
venly Father? When a disorder and all the eflfects of it, are remov- 
ed from the constitution of a patient, will he receive any pain as 
a blessing from the physician's hand, which is utterly unneces- 
sary, and has no tendency to do him any good? 

Nothing is more common, says Mr. Fletcher, than for men to 
run into one extreme, under the plausible pretence of avoiding 
another. Our Calvinist brethren have believed and taught that all 
christians must necessarily commit sin as long as they live, and 
that death is intended to remove all their iniquities from them. I 
apprehend the mistake of many pious men among them, consists 
in taking for granted that a man commits sin every time he feels a 
propensity to it. They observe the signs of those propensities con- 
tinue with good men, the very best not excepted, apparently to the 
end of their pilgrimage: hence they conclude that no man in this 
life can be saved from sin; but that the goodness of God has ap- 
pointed death as the means of its final destruction. 

Admitting the premises to be true, I, for one, would cordially 
acquiesce in their conclusion: and if they will confine it to sin, im-f 
properly so called, that is. to those natural propensities, the cut 
tire removal of which does not at all depend upon our voluntary 
exertions, the conclusion is supported by the clearest evidence. But 
if they mean that all christians must really commit sin as long as 
they live, and that death alone puts an end to our actual sinning; 
this is contradicted by the joint testimony of the inspired writers, 
who agree to declare, that "Jesus saves his people from their sins, 
that they may walk before him in righteousness and holiness all 
the days of their life." This has been sufficiently proved by Mr. 
Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, to whose excellent works I refer the 
reader. 

The consequences of the opposite opinion are alarming: for 
good men are thereby discouraged in their pursuit of holiness, and 



338 AN ESSAY ON THE 

many luke-warm professors, it is to be feared, take encouragement 
to IndaLge themselves in sin, under pretence that they must sin of 
necessity, until death brings them a discharge. 

It is therefore necessary for us to make a firm stand against 
such a pernicious delusion. But let us beware at the same time that 
we do not run into an opposite delusion equally pernicious. This 
may be done ip two ways: (1.) by believing that christians may in 
this life be delivered from all propensities to evil, and (2.) by 
maintaining, under pretence of opposing a death-purgatory, that 
death is totally unnecessary, and has no tendency to our advan- 
tage. 

1. Shall we say that sanctified christians are as perfectly clear 
of evil propensities as an angel? If so, their warfare against such 
propensities is accomplished, and though the devil still may 
tempt them, yet they have nothing in their nature to oppose, any 
Biore than those who are now in heaven. If they still feel any ex- 
eitement in their nature, which requires an effort of resistance, 
this is what I mean by an evil propensity: and to suppose they are 
entirely removed from sanctified christians, is a delusion, I appre- 
hend, nearly as pernicious in its eff*ects as the opposite one. Many 
1 fear have long pui^ued christian holiness, under the delusive no- 
tion that it consists in a deliverance from all propensities to evil, 
»nd, finding their labour vain, have abandoned the pursuit, and 
have settled themselves down with attainments in religion, far be- 
low those which it was their privilege to enjoy. 

That we may guard against this danger, and at the same time 
give no encouragement to sin, let us endeavour to obtain distinct 
conceptions upon a matter in which we are so seriously and deep- 
ly interested. 

It is true, full sanetification includes a deliverance, not only 
lirom all gross violations of the divine law, but also from all sinful 
passions and tempers. 

But what is a sinful temper? It consists in an habitual attach- 
ment or inordinate affection to something beside God. A sinful 
passion is a momentary attachment of the same kind. A man loves 
the world, or perhaps he loves himself more than he ought: this is 
an evil temper, and while he makes no immediate efforts against 
ity there is a perpetual consent of his will to love something more 
than it ought to be loved. Many indulge such inordinate affections 
for months or years, without noticing them, through mere care- 
lessness, or want of self-examination. They know not what man- 
ner of spirit they are of, and may plead that they are not conviuc- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 339 

ed of any wrong affection, and their conscience does not condemn 
them; but this excuse is vain, because they neglect to consult their 
conscience, or do not consult it properly, and in consequence, re- 
main ignorant of that which might be known by a proper exercise 
of attention and reflection. After they received conviction of the 
«vil temper, they interrupt its settled course by a few feeble eiForts, 
seldom repeated; but in general there is an inordinate attection ex- 
isting with the consent of their will, and this is a sin, properly so 
ealled, because it is a voluntary consent of the will to that which 
the understanding knows, or may know, to be wrong. 

They may indeed have a, desire to be delivered from such tem- 
pers, at the same time that they make no eftbrt against them; but 
it is to be remembered that will and desire are not the same thing. 
If I have a disordered tooth that is very troublesome, I may sit 
for a long time with a desire to have it out; but the moment I will 
or determine to have it immediately extracted, I make an eflbrt to 
that effect. An indolent person may have a strong desire to im- 
prove his farm, while he does nothing; but when he determines 
that he will improve it, you see him go to work. A timorous 
traveller may sit for hours upon the bank of a stream that looks 
dangerous, with a strong desire to be over; this desire alone will 
produce no effect; but when he determines that he will cross it, he 
plunges into the water. In like manner when a man ivills to over- 
come his evil tempers, he labours and uses the proper means 
whereby he may obtain the victory. 

It is true, a man may will or determine to do a thing at some fu- 
ture period, without any present exertions; but in the mean time his 
will consents that it shall remain undone till the period arrives 
which he has appointed. A sinner appoints a time, perhaps five 
years hence, when he shall have accomplished certain purposes, 
and resolves that at that time he will seek the Lord, and call upon 
him while he is near: the man is not the less guilty on account 
of this resolution, because he determines that he will not seek 
the Lord at present, but will postpone it for five years: there- 
fore during the five years he willingly lives without God in the 
world. So a christian with evil tempers may desire and wish 
they were removed; he may determine that some time or other he 
will oppose them with vigour: yet he remains a voluntary sinner 
for the present, because his will is not immediately exerting itself 
against them, but resolves to postpone it to some future period. 
Such a man is an imperfect christian, and is not saved from sin. 
He neglects that which he knows to be his immediate duty, that is. 



340 AN ESSAY ON THE 

he neglects to use or exert the power he now possesses, which is 
properly a sin, because it is voluntary. 

Perhaps he loves present ease too well, and hence refuses to pur- 
sue the knowledge of duty with that vigilance which is within his 
power; or, through an undue attachment to some other object or 
party, he voluntarily indulges some prepossession or bias of mind, 
which refuses to give truth a fair hearing. This is an evil tem- 
per, and it prevails not in any man that is saved from sin. A pre- 
possession arising from invincible ignorance is no crime; but so 
far as its existence depends upon our neglecting to use the power 
we possess, so far it is sinful, because it is a voluntary disaffection 
to the truth. How inrfumerable are the prejudices indulged, even 
by christians themselves, and what is most lamentable, thousands 
seem not to suspect that there is any immorality in them! What 
an object of pity must that man be, who imagines himself so per- 
fect as to be free from all propensities to evil, and at the same 
time has such inordinate attachment to some party or interest, as 
influences him to shut his eyes against the light of evidence, and 
refuse to give it an impartial hearing! he is resolved, if possible, 
that nothing shall be proved or received as true, that difters from 
his former opinions, or from those of his particular friends, whom 
he is disposed to support in every thing they say, for no other rea- 
son but because they say it! The stronger your arguments are 
against his favourite opinion, the more he is offended; and he has 
recourse to stratagem, if not to secret malevolence, to put you to 
silence, and to hinder all he can from hearing you with that can- 
dour of which he himself is destitute. Is this a perfect man.^^ cer- 
tainly he is not, unless we say the love of truth makes no part of 
the christian character. 

Now the word of God assures us we may, in this life, obtain sal- 
vation from all such evil tempers, so as to love the Lord our God 
with all our heart, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. He that 
does this is saved from all pride, malice and prejudice: and he 
loves nothing in the world with a higher degree of affection than 
that which is perfectly just and good. 

AVe will suppose a man stands here, who is thus saved from sin. 
His affections are now rightly balanced, and he is resolved to keep 
them so. By and bye he feels some excitement in his nature, w hich 
he finds has a tendency to lead him to love some object more than 
he ought, and he cannot maintain the present balance of his af- 
fections, without resisting that excitement by a voluntary effort 
of which he is conscious. 



I 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3*1 

This is what I mean by a propensity to evil, in contradistinction 
to an evil temper, or inordinate affection. The propensity tends 
to produce the inordinate affection, and if not resisted will pre- 
sently lead the soul into it; but if a firm stand be made against it, 
if his will refuse to yield, even for a moment, to its influence,— 
he has kept the balance of his affections with the magnanimity of 
a christian, and he is so far from being a sinner merely on account 
of the feeling which he manfully resisted, that he fought a good 
fight, and kept the faith, and if he continue thus to fight, until he 
shall have finished his course, there remaineth, henceforth, for 
him, a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteous judge 
ivillgive him at that day. 

Hence we easily avoid the flimsy objection, that if evil pro- 
pensities be no sin, we need not oppose them: for if they be not 
resisted, the soul yields to be carried by them into an evil affec- 
tion, which is sin. We might as well say, if it be no sin for a man 
to be tempted, then there is no necessity for us to resist tempta- 
tion. We ought to oppose our evil propensities with perpetual 
diligence, and to use all means in our power to avoid every occa^ 
sion that would bring them into operation. And this should be 
done, not because they in themselves are sin, but because it is a 
sin for a man voluntarily to seek temptation, or to run into the oc- 
casions of it, when duty does not call him there. Our Saviour 
teaches us to pray that we may not be led into temptation; this is 
one branch of the prayer which he taught his disciples; therefore 
we are bound to avoid temptations as long as we can with a safe 
©onscience, and to resist them when they are unavoidable. 

My reasons for believing that christians have no grounds to ex- 
pect deliverance from evil propensities in this life, and for op- 
posing the contrary belief, are the following: 

1. The highest perfection God has promised to his people in 
this life, is to enable them to love him with all their heart, and to 
love their neighbour as themselves: that is, to have their affections 
balanced as they ought to be. But this state may be enjoyed not- 
withstanding those propensities, so long as they are properly re- 
sisted. 

2. Such a deliverance (as here opposed) is contrary to univer- 
sal experience. Many christians may have lived for a considerable 
time without feeling any thing in their nature to need resistance; but 
some unexpected insult, or other occasion, makes them feel that 
their virtue cannot yet be maintained without a struggle. In proof 
ef this we may appeal to their own consciousness, and if that 

X X 



343 AN ESSAY ON THE 

avail nothing, "Nve may next appeal to the observations of their 
neighbours, who have often seen the signs of a painful warfare hi 
their bosom. 

3. The sentiment I oppose, supercedes the necessity of con- 
stant self-denial: for if there be nothing in a man's nature but what 
is uniformly prone to goodness, and nothing prone to evil, then he 
cannot deny himself, or any thing in himself, without resisting a 
propensity to perfect goodness. If you command this man to deny 
himself, you command him to resist and oppose his propensity to 
do right, seeinglhere is no other propensity in his nature. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us, not only to resist the de- 
vil, but to deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily, which 
plainly implies that there is something in ourselves which must be 
crossed and denied daily, because it has a tendency to lead us into 
sin, and will certainly do it, unless it be resisted. Why are we to 
cross and deny any of our natural appetites, but because there is 
a propensity or tendency in them to rise too high, and to produce 
an evil temper, if not an evil action? If there be nothing in 
them, or any other part of our nature, but what is regularly prone 
to that which is right, and to nothing else, we cannot cross or deny 
our appetites, or any other part of ourselves, without being actual 
sinners, because we would actually oppose the influence of per- 
fect goodness. 

4. I oppose this doctrine, and wish it banished out of the world, 
for the sake of many good men, the very best not excepted, who 
through the influence of this pernicious delusion, have spent manj 
hours of fruitless grief and lamentation, merely because they felt 
evil propensities in their nature. "A godly sorrow worketh repen- 
tance to salvation;" but such sorrow as this is a fruitless waste of 
that time which might be spent in rejoiciEg with the "blessed man 
that endureth temptation: for when he is tried he shall receive the 
crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love 
him." 

0. I presume the apostles of Jesus Christ possessed as high a 
state of perfection as we have a right to look for; but they were 
not delivered from the warfare between the flesh and the spirit: 
for St. Paul says, <<I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec- 
tion; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I 
myself should be a cast-away." 1 Cor. ix. 27. Does not this plain- 
ly suppose that there was still a tendency in his natural affections* 
or the appetites of his body, to lead him into excess? And there- 
fore that he found it necessary to exercise temperance, and keep 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 343 

his body in subjection, j^sit were with a bridle, lest the flesh should 
prevail against the spirit? And how could this be, if there was 
nothing in his flesh, or any other part of his nature, but what was 
uniformly prone to goodness? 

These excitements or tendencies in our nature which need re- 
sistance, I have called propensities, because I know no better 
name to give them. They differ from evil tempers and aftectious 
in this, that they are perfectly involuntary, and are no more under 
the control of our will than the circulation of the blood: Nay, 
they are so far from arising from an wrong direction of the will, 
that we often feel them when the whole force of the will is exert- 
ed in a contrary direction. They agree with other temptations in 
every particular, excepting only that the occasion of the tempta- 
tion is in our nature. Am I a sinner merely because certain /ee^- 
ings rise from my constitution which tend to lead me into sin? — 
And suppose the temptation comes immediately from the devil, 
does it not produce sl. feeling of the same tendency, which must be 
resisted by a painful exertion? I appeal to the consciousness of 
every living christian. And if a man is a sinner on account of 
the excitement or feeling which arises from his body or animal na- 
ture, he is a sinner for the same reason, when resisting the pain- 
ful /ee/m«^s of which he is conscious, when tempted by the devil. 
Thus it appears, a man who expects deliverance from this war- 
fare with the flesh in this life, expects to be above his Lord, who 
was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. 

6. I oppose this doctrine because I conceive it to be of danger- 
ous tendency. I fear some christians have been led to make false 
and enthusiastic professions of those imaginary heights of holiness 
which surpass the lot of humanity; and supposing there was no- 
thing now remaining in their nature to resist, have abated in their 
vigilance, and suspected no danger, till, like Peter, in an un- 
guarded hour, they have fallen into sin, by not watching with a 
jealous eye over those propensities which they vainly imagined 
had no more existence. 

Some, it may be, have held their profession of this high sancti- 
fication in opposition to their own consciousness: have felt those 
propensities time after time in their nature, and still refused to 
believe it. At length, being weary of doing violence to themselves, 
they have given up the belief of their freedom from natural ex* 
citements to evil, and with it their confidence in christian holi- 
ness. Others attempt for a while to go on to perfection; but ob- 
serving that such a complete deliverance from natural propensi- 



344 AN ESSAY ON THE 

ties is no where verified in any of their religious friends, they con- 
clude the doctrine of christian perfection is a chimera that exists 
no where but in the imaginations of men. 

Thus it appears to me, ii we were bent upon bringing men back 
by degrees to the Caivinistic doctrine, that it is a vain thing to 
seek for perfection, and that all men must continue sinners as long 
as they live, we could scarcely devise a more successful method 
of doing it, than by straining the doctrine of sanctifieation so far, 
as to make it imply a deliverance from all natural propensities 
to evil. 

^. It is indeed a very dangerous error, to suppose death is ap- 
pointed as the means of our deliverance from sin; the merits of 
Christ, and the operations of his spirit are the cause of our de- 
liverance, and repentance and faith are the means of it. If there- 
fore we neglect the means appointed in the gospel, and live in our 
sins till death, under the belief that death is the mean appointed 
for its removal, when it is not, what mistake can be imagined to 
he more dangerous.'^ 

But is there no way to guard against this mistake, but to run 
into another, and to explode all ideas of advantage from our last 
affliction, in mere opposition to the frightful name of a death-pur- 
gatory.^ If we had no other evidence against it, and had no other 
way to defend ourselves against the attacks of our opponents, than 
to cast upon them the odium of the name, purgatory, such a pitiful 
argument would be truly beneath their attention. The popish 
doctrine itself, concerning a place of purification after death, 
could never be proved false if we had no argument against it, but 
the deformity of the name by which it is called. We reject it be- 
cause it is contrary to the word of God, and is an error of very 
dangerous tendency: remove these objections, and we can draw no 
arguments from the name, because it is as perfectly innocent as 
the name of paradise. 

But though reason can derive no evidence from a mere name, 
yet prejudice can accomplish wonders by its magical influence.-^ 
How many have run head-long into various opinions, and adher- 
ed to them for no other reason but their dread of such shocking 
names as the following: Popery — Heretic — Calvinism — Armin- 
ianism — Pelagianism — Socinianism — Arianism — Free-wilier— 
Perfectionist — Antinomian — Legalist—^Democracy — Federalism, 
&c. &c. 

Prejudice, passion and party nonsense, appear to govern the be- 
lief of thpusaiids both in church and state. When a man is car* 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 845 

ried away in this manner, the very name by wliicli the opposite 
party is denominated, acquires such dismal and fearful deformity, 
that he can scarcely hear it mentioned, or think of it, with any 
degree of patience. The farther he goes from every sentiment 
held by his opponents, the more meritorious is his conduct. He 
dreads the very suspicion of his agreeing with them in any thing; 
and rather than be found in such detestable company, he will sup- 
press the voice of reason, and renounce the plainest dictates of 
common sense. To be true to his own party, he must follow them 
in all their absurdities, and never suffer his soul to call into ques- 
tion a single sentiment which they hold, or deviate a moment from 
any part of their practice. Their opinions must all be taken for 
granted, and his business is, not to inquire what is truth, but to 
defend his own sect or party in every particular, and to refute the 
opposite by frequently repeating their name with indications of 
scorn and detestation. He will not venture to examine any senti. 
ment held by his party, or to admit the possibility of their being 
mistaken, lest he should be thought not hearty in the cause: he is 
equally afraid to examine the sentiments of the other party, with 
any degree of candour, lest his own brethren should consider him 
a disafl'ected character, and brand him w ith the frightful name of 
his adversaries, from which he would shrink back as from the open- 
ing grave. In this manner has error often triumphed under the 
fostering influence of party malevolence, while truth had to retire 
among the lonely valleys, and reason to disappear, or to lie insult- 
ed, prostrate on the ground. 

Without pursuing this digression, though not an unimportant 
one, we return to inquire what other objection can be alleged 
against the goodness of God making death an instrument of bene- 
fit to his creatures. 

Will it be said it robs Christ of his glory, by attributing to death 
what his grace alone is able to accomplish? This argument of rob- 
bing Christ of his glory, so often urged by the Calvinists, may, it 
is true, be retorted upon themselves; but it has no solidity against 
either us or them. K we had no other argument but this against 
their doctrine, that death is an instrument of our deliverance from 
the power of sin, I apprehend it would prove just nothing, and 
might be retorted upon ourselves with success. We disbelieve 
their doctrine, not because it would of necessity rob Christ of his 
glory, which is an hypothesis unsupported by scripture or reason, 
but because the word of God assures us we may be saved from our 
sins before death, and that repentance and faith, not the agonies of 



346 AN ESSAY ON THE 

dissolution, are the means through which this salvation is to be 
received. 

If Christ cannot make use of means and instruments, in the 
work of our salvation, without diminishing his own glory, he must, 
if he would secure the whole glory to himself, lay them all aside, 
and do every thing by an invisible influence, without the interven- 
tion of men or books, law or gospel, prayers or sacraments, or 
any other means of grace. And permit me to ask, why is one in- 
strument which he is pleased to make use of, more calculated to 
rob him of his glory than another? He doubtless uses the means 
best calculated to promote the end intended; and when that end is 
the production of a moral influence on the mind, our voluntary use 
of them is demanded; but when they are designed to produce an 
eft*ect upon any part of our constitution, that is not under the im- 
mediate control of our will, God himself applies the means with- 
out our voluntary concurrence, and produces the effect intended: 
hence I conclude, our salvation from all "voluntary transgressions 
of a known law" is accomplished through the use of means that are 
put in our power, and the use of which depends upon our choice. 
For the same reason I conclude that involuntary propensities, 
such as infants have, are removed from their nature when necessa- 
ry, by means which depend not upon their choice. I believe death is 
the instrument made use of, because 1 must believe that the death 
of infants is designed for their advantage, or charge God with the 
cruelty or folly of punishing them for nothing, or of imputing sin 
to them that he may treat them as guilty rebels, upon the false 
charge of a crime which they never committed. 

Is this the way to avoid robbing Christ of his glory? And as our 
lives are prolonged by the instrumentality of bread, and our health 
restored by various kinds of medicine, does it follow from this that 
the God of nature and providence is robbed of his glory? But at the 
same time that we maintain that the death of infants is intended 
for their own final benefit, we believe it equally true that their 
suffering promotes other just and gracious purposes. 

It affords an universal argument to prove the direful tendency 
of sin; and evinces that it not only violates the rights of men and 
angels, and tends to ruin the moral faculties of the sinner; but its 
pernicious eff'ects descend to the latest posterity, and our helpless 
infants come into the world with such disorderly prepensities of 
nature, as are to be removed by remedies no less severe than the 
lingering pains of dissolution. Thus all men who will exercise 
their reason, may be benefitted by the state of infants, inasmuch 



PLAN OF SALVATION. Sir 

as their condition affords evidence of an original ^postacy, and 
ther eby establishes the truth of revelation, and at the same time 
furnishes the most powerful motives to flee from sin, as the moral 
poison which has contaminated the human race, and which, if not ar- 
rested in its progress would establish an universal empire of misery. 

The groans and tears of dying children are also used by provi- 
dence as a just punishment and correction to their parents, who of- 
ten feel nearly or quite as great pain in their souls, as the children 
feel in their dissolution. 

In proof of this we will select one remarkable instance. Nathan, 
when reproving David for his sin against Uriah, said, "Because 
by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the 
Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall 
surely die. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife 
bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought 
God for the child; and David fasted and went in, and lay all night 
upon the ground. And the elders of his house arose, and went to 
him, to raise him up from the earth; but he would not, neither did 
he eat bread with them." — 2 Sam. xii. 14*. 

Thus it appears that DaWd's soul endured such severe affliction 
that he refused all consolation, and abandoned himself to fasting 
and lamentations. And as seven days elapsed before the child was 
dead, the parent's heart, during all that time, was oppressed with 
a load of conscious misery and distress. After the child's depar- 
ture, he took refreshment, and said, "While the child was yet 
alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell w hetlier God w ill 
be gracious to me, that the child may live. But now he is dead, 
wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go 
to him, but he shall not return to me." — Ver. 22, 23. 

What abundant matter was here for humble and serious medita- 
tion! I almost fancy I can see the royal psalmist watering the 
ground with his briny tears, as thousands have done in all ages of 
the world. He lies prostrate before God, weeping, and feebly offer- 
ing his plaintive cries to heaven, in all the tenderness of paternal 
grief! Domestic comforts fail him; the sight of his spouse and love- 
ly offspring only serves to increase his agony, while his houses 
and friends are forgotten, and the beauties of nature have lost all 
their charms! Can silver and gold assuage his inquietude? Can 
orchards and gardens dissipate the gloom, and alleviate the bur- 
den of his grief? Alas! they are all neglected, his table abandoned, 
and his servants expostulate in vain! He beholds his little help- 
less infant, groaning, sighing, and sinking into the arms of death; 



348 AN ESSAY ON THE 

he shrinks back from the mournful spectacle, and melts down with 
conscious wretchedness, into all the tender sympathies of a par- 
ent's heart! Merciful God! are these the eft'ects of sin? yes: the 
seeds of evil are so deeply sown in human nature, that they have 
made pain become necessary as an instrument of God's justice 
and goodness: justice towards the actual offenders, and goodness 
towards their helpless and unoffending offspring. And David 
might say, "This child is cut down as a flower because of my sin: 
had 1 walked uprightlv, he might have lived to manhood, and be- 
come the comfort and stay of ray old age. But alas! my own ini- 
quities have hastened the dying agonies of my child, and every 
pain he feels is like a sword piercing through my soul!" 

But upon the gloomy hypothesis I have been opposing, these 
salutary reflections are all stifled in the birth. For supposing Da- 
vid had believed the doctrine invented in after ages: what would 
have been his natural conclusions? "This child, he might have 
said, lies suffering here, because he is guilty of Adam's sin: it is 
most abundant goodness that his miseries are not doubled: he de- 
serves everlasting damnation, and perhaps when this breath is 
gone, he will be a companion of devils, suffering the vengeance of 
eternal fire. If he is punished for my sin, this could not be done 
with any justice or equity, unless the sins of parents are imputed 
to their children: therefore he suffers nothing more than he de- 
serves: and I will no longer lament under the delusive notion that 
my guilt is the cause of his misery, because it is his own guilt, not 
mine, for which justice now demands his death. And if indeed a 
part of ray guilt, be transferred to him,I am consequently less guil- 
ty than I would be if it were all my own: I may therefore dry up 
my tears, and leave the little guilty creature to his fate." 

Such barbarous opinions, if I mistake not, have a native tenden- 
cy to harden the heart of man, and to freeze every generous senti- 
ment of our nature. 

Many of the heathens, to imitate the malevolence of their im- 
aginary gods, have suppressed the dearest feelings of humanity, 
and burnt their own children in the fire! The merciless church of 
Rome has exceeded the enormities of her Pagan mother, as we 
have seen; and the unparalleled tortures she invented for the pun- 
ishment of those whom she considered heretics were inflicted un- 
der pretence of religion and piety to God! They believe that all 
infants are guilty, and deserve eternal destruction, especially the 
children of heretics. Baptism is tlieir Saviour, and all infants 
who happen to die without being baptized, according to Bellar- 
min?, certainly go -to the hell of the reprobates." 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 849 

These are the sickenning fruits of a superstitious theology^ 
uhieh attributes to the benevolent Father of the spirits of all flesh) 
the cruel principles of human and diabolical depravity. 

It has been sometimes argued that God has no such feelings as 
those which prevail in our nature; he is not (h be melted down 
with pity and sympathy as we are: therefore all appeals to hzi- 
manity against any doctrine of religion, are altogether nugatory, 
and prove nothing . but the ignorance of him who makes the ap- 
peal. 

And who was it, let me ask, that planted those feelings of hu- 
manity in our nature? Is not God the author of them? And did he 
not plant them in us to supply the deficiency of our moral good- 
ness? How many wretched creatures in this world, w ould be ne- 
glected and left to perish, if it were not for the stimulating influ- 
ence of pity and svmpathy? How many are therein all countries 
and ages, who, without any regard to the principle of benevolence 
or justice, are influenced to preserve their offspring, and minister 
to the wants of the miserable, by the mere operation of natural af- 
fection, similar to that which prevails in the inferior animals? If 
those natural feelings were removed from the human race, and if 
they were left to be influenced solely by their regard to justice and 
goodness, I presume that in the course of a few centuries not a hu- 
man creature would be found upon the face of the earth. 

If we were under the perfect and uniform influence of moral 
principles, if evil ones were confined to the regions of hell, and 
had no place in this part of the creation, then we should be more 
like God than we now are, and there w ould be no necessity for the 
feelings of sympathy that are now so essential to the well-being 
of human society. 

Granting then that God has not the feelings which prevail in 
human nature, what does this prove? Does it prove that God is less 
disposed to promote the happiness of his creatures, and to prevent 
their misery, than true pity inclines us to be? If so, it would seem, 
that God is deficient in moral goodness as well as man, and needs 
the feelings of humanity to bring him up to our standard. 

It is true, that natural sympathies may be misapplied through 
ignorance and partiality, as well as every other principle of our na- 
ture: but then the end for which they were given is defeated; and 
when so directed, they tend to the injury of mankind. So far as pi- 
ty leads us to promote universal happiness, and to prevent misery, 
60 far it answers the end for which divine goodness planted 
it in our nature: and it is truly absurd to suppose that it ever 

Yy 



Z50 AN ESSAY ON THE 

produces in us a greater regard to general happiness than 
exists in that Mind whose paternal kindness implanted it in our 
nature, for the very purpose of supporting and guarding the felici- 
ty of human kind. God has no disposition to punish any creature 
in earth or hell, from any other principle but his regard to the 
rights of the innocent, and the general welfare of the creation: 
and the scripture doctrine of everlasting punishments is to be re- 
solved, not into his being destitute of our feelings of humanity, but 
into the direful nature and tendency of moral evil. The very mo- 
ment we suppose that he ever has punished any creature more 
than is strictly necessary to the support of general happiness, or 
that he ever will do it in any period of eternal duration, that mo- 
ment we charge him with a departure from the principles of jus- 
tice and benevolence. 

The reason why devils and wicked men are to be punished ever- 
lastingly, is because they will be everlastingly hostile to the go- 
Ternmentof God, and could never be released from their dungeon 
without becoming a general nuisance in the creation, exerting 
themselves to diffuse the poison of iniquity, and to assail the tran- 
quillity of the heavenly regions. 



SECTION XI. 

Second consequence. 

The brute creatures were made subject to vanity, through a be- 
nevolent intention in the Deity towards those creatures; they are 
subjected to a speedy dissolution, not through caprice or cruelty, 
but because it is rendered necessary by their connexion with a per- 
verse and sinful race of men. This inference we may admit with- 
out hesitation, because its truth is established by the following 
evidence: 

1. If we deny this conclusion, we must say God punishes the 
beasts as criminals, according to the requirements of inflexible 
justice; this supposes them to be guilty, which is a monstrous hy- 
pothesis repugnant to every principle of morality and common 
reason. If any one should be disposed to take this ground, to se- 
cure the important doctrine of infant criminality, shall we receive 



I 



PLx\N OF SALVATION. 351 

it for a truth merely because he is pleased to tell us it is so? or 
shall we wait for him to prove it by at least one passage of scrip- 
ture, or by one argument that will bear examination? 

2. Men are commanded to abstain ''from things strangled, and 
from blood." As strangling is a very painful kind of death, and as 
we are to abstain from blood, because it is the life of ihe animal, 
we are thereby plainly taught to regard the life of inferior crea- 
tures, and never expose them to unnecessary pain. This is a plain 
dictate of conscience and humanity, as well as of revelation; and 
as the voice of God thus commands us not to inflict pain on his 
creatures, farther than is strictly necessary, it is a plain proof 
that he is kind to his meanest creatures, and is unwilling that 
they should suffer more than is needful to subserve the ends of his 
benevolence. Now if God does not punish the brute creatures as 
criminals, and if there is nothing in his nature which influences 
him to do it for no end but the mere pleasure of seeing them tor- 
mented, it remains that it necessarily arises from their connexion 
with the human race; and God has subjected them to a speedy dis- 
solution, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good in 
future. This is an evident deduction from the nature of God, as 
exhibited in the bible, and reason requires us to admit the conclu- 
sion, even though we were unable to discover how those ends of 
divine goodness will be accomplished. 

3. It is not hard to understand how this dispensation of God is 
calculated to prevent a greater evil: for the inferior animals are 
tortured with unrelenting cruelty by wicked men, and if they 
were not released by death, their burden would be augmented and 
protracted for thousands of years. The very animals that lived in 
the days of Adam would yet be groaning under the hand of tyran- 
ny; but the decree of heaven has fixed bounds beyond which the 
barbarity of sinners cannot pass: when the pain is brought to a 
certain point, death gives the innocent creature a discharge from 
the monster that takes pleasure in its agony, and who would per- 
haps, if not thus prevented, increase its misery a thousand-fold. 

"Not only the feebler creatures are continually destroyed by the 
stronger;" says Mr. Wesley, "but both the one and the other are 
exposed to the violence and cruelty of him that is now their com- 
mon enemy, man. He pursues them over the w idest plains, and 
through the thickest forests. He overtakes them in the fields of 
air, he finds them out in the depth of the sea. Nor are the mild 
and friendly creatures, who still own his sway, and are duteous to 
his commands, secured thereby from more than brutal violence. 



352 AN ESSAY ON THE 

from outrage and abuse of various kinds. What returns for their 
loii^ and faithful service, do many of these poor creatures find? 
And what a dreadful difference is therebetween what they suffer 
from their fellow-brutes, and what they suffer from the tyrant, 
man! The Lion, the Tyger, and the Shark, give them pains from 
mere necessity, in order to prolong their own life, and put them 
out of their pain at once. But the human Shark, without any 
such necessity, torments them of his free choice; and perhaps con- 
tinues their lingering pain, till after months or years, death signs 
their release."* 

This just picture may be finished by the following beautiful lines 
pf Cowper; 

So Eden was a scene of harmless sport, 
Where kindness on his part, who ruled the wkole^ 
Begat a tranquil confidence in all, 
And fear as yet was not, nor cause for fear. 
But sin marred all; and the revolt of man. 
That source of evils not exhausted yet, 
W^as punished w ith revolt of his from him. 
Garden of God, how terrible the change 
Thy groves and lawns then witnessed! Every hearty 
Each animal of every name, conceived 
A jealousy and an instinctive fear, 
And, conscious of some danger, either fled 
Precipitate the loath'd abode of man, 
Or growPd defiance in such angry sort, 
, As taught him too to tremble in his turn. 
Thus harmony and family accord 
Were driven from Paradise; and in that hour 
The seeds of cruelty, that since have swelPd 
To such gigantic and enormous growth. 
Were sown in hnman nature's fruitful soil. 
Hence date the persecution and the pain 
That man inflicts on all inferior kinds, 
Regardless of their plaints. To make him sporty 
To gratify the frenzy of his wrath, 
Or his base gluttony, are causes good 
And just in his account, why bird and beast 
Should suffer torture, and the streams be dy-d 



* Sermons, vol. 5, p. 1^6. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 358 

With blood of their inhabitants impaPd. 
EaHh groans beneath the burden of a war 
Waged with defenceless innocence, while he 
Not satisfied to prey on all around, 
Adds tenfold bitterness to death by pangs 
Needless, and first torments ere he devours. 

Witness at his foot ^5 

The spaniel dying for some venial fault 

Under dissection of the knotted scourge; 

Witness the patient ox, with stripes and yells • 

Driven to the slaughter, goaded, as he runs, 

To madness; while the savage at his heels 

Laughs at the frantic sufferer's fury, spent 

Upon the guiltless passenger o'erthrown. '. 

He too is witness, noblest of the train 

That wait on man, the flight-performing horse: 

With unsuspecting readiness he takes 

His murderer on his back, and push'd all day 

With bleeding sides and flanks, that heave for life, 

To the far distant gaol, arrives and dies. 

But many a crime, deem'd innocent on earth, 
Is register'd in Heav'n; and these no doubt ^ 

Have each their record, with a curse annex'd. 
Man may dismiss compassion from his heart. 
But God will never. When he charg'd the Jew 
To assist his foe's down-fallen beast to rise; i 

And when the bush-exploring boy, that seiz'd 
The young, to let the parent bird go free; 
Prov'd he not plainly that his meaner works 
Are yet his care, and have an interest all, 
All, in the universal Father's love? 

The Task, 

Now supposing God had made no alteration in animal nature 
after the fall of man; but had left the unoffending animals in a 
state not naturally tending to dissolution: would not men have in- 
flicted greater and more lingering miseries upon them than they 
now have power to do.^ Or will any one say that the flesh of beasts 
was originally made of iron, and their bones of brass.^ So that the 
lashes of the whip, or the operation of fire and sharpened steel 
could not give them any pain. 

They were free from misery in the original state of things, not 
because they were incapable of suffering, but because there was 



354 AN ESSAY ON THE 

nothing in the creation to hurt them* But after moral evil was in- 
troduced, man became a barbarian to inferior animals, as matter 
of fact has proved in every age of the world, from that time to 
the present. And it is evident the very animals that lived in the 
days of Adam would have continued in a state of painful drudge- 
ry to the present hour, had not their kind Creator terminated their 
misery, by subjecting them to a speedy dissolution. 

There is no way to set aside this conclusion, but by supposing they 
were originally incapable of being made to suffer by any art that 
sinners could invent. And does the bible tell us any thing about 
such a pitiful hypothesis.^ If not, on what ground are we to re- 
ceive it as a truth? Are we to take it for granted without any evi- 
dence, merely because it is necessary to support the notion that 
sin was orisinally a perfectly harmless thing that could not possi- 
bly hurt any creature in existence, and that God, with his own 
hand, first brought misery into the creation? 

What the first sin of angels was we are not informed; but what- 
ever it might be, we must be very cautious (as those imagine who 
maintain that suffering is always a proof of guilt.) how we admit 
that it had any natural tendency to produce misery either in the 
sinners themselves or their fellow-creatures: all misery must arise 
from the execution of some penalty, otherwise there is no argu- 
ment left to support the great doctrine that infants and brutes are 
guilty. When Adam sinned, his crime is supposed to have been 
equally harmless: it neither produced pain nor evil propensities, 
us its natural eft'ect, either in him or his posterity: and had God 
w ithheld his hand from executing penalties, it seems, all mankind 
might have multiplied their crimes to the present day, and yet 
have remained as perfectly happy as they were in Paradise; and 
with all their malice and fury it would be impossible for them to 
give a moment's pain to any beast in the creation! 

If this be so, it follows that when God first inflicted penalties 
on account of sin, it was not done to defend the happiness of any 
living creature; for the tranquillity of all remained undisturbed, 
and would have so continued to eternity, had not his own hand first 
made a breacli upon it by intiietiiig his penalties. And as God had 
no regard to the welfare of any of his creatures, in punishing sin, 
seeing it was a harmless thing that made no inroads upon their 
welfare; therefore he introduced misery merely to gratify seme 
private principle in himself, which could never rest satisfied with- 
out seeing some creature tormented. This is the secret principle 
that runs through the whole schemcj and supports the enormous 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 305 

system of sovereign partiality and eternal reprobation! This se- 
cret, mysterious anil amazing justice, arising out of the divine 
sovereignty, is the Maniehean principle which produces all the 
good and evil — all the happiness and misery to be found in hea- 
ven, earth, or hell! Shall we take courage, and renounce this dis- 
mal view of things? Or must we conclude that "we cannot let it 
go without giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, 
of the essential articles of the christian faith?" 

4. As God is thus kind and good to his meanest creatures, and 
proves that he has a perpetual regard for their well-being; who 
will undertake to declare that he has no benevolent intention to 
establish their happiness, when the Lord Jesus shall have destroy- 
ed the works of the devil, "at the times of restitution of all things, 
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 
since the world began?" 

"The creature," says Mr. Wesley, "every creature was subject- 
ed to vanity, to sorrow, to pain of every kind, to all manner of 
evils. Not indeed willingly; not by its own choice; nor by any act 
or deed of its own; but by reason of him that subjected it; by 
the wise permission of God, determining to draw eternal good out 
of this temporary evil."* 

"While his creatures travail together in pain, he knoweth all 
their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth, 
which shall be accomplished in its season. He seeth the earnest 
expectation wherewith the w hole animated creation waiteth for 
that final manifestation of the sons of God, in which they them- 
selves, also shall be delivered, (not by annihilation: annihilation 
is not deliverance,) from the present bondage of corruption into 
(a measure of,) the glorious liberty of the children of God."t 

Mr. Wesley goes on; "nothing can be more express, away with 
vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place. 
They shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glo- 
rious liberty: even a measure, according as they are capable, of 
the liberty of the children of God. 

" But what end does it answer, to dwell upon this subject which 
we so imperfectly understand?" To consider so much as we do 
understand,! so much as God has been pleased to reveal to us, 
may answer that excellent end, to illustrate that mercy of God, 
which is over all his works. And it may exceedingly confirm our 
belief, that much more he is loving to every man. For how welJ 



Sermons, vol. v. page 123. t Page ±27, t Page 130. 



356 AN ESSAY ON THE 

may we urge our Lord's word, Are not ye much better than they? If 
then the Lord takes such care of the fowJs of the air, and of the 
heasts of the field, shall he not much more take care of you, crea- 
tures of a nobler order? 

" May it not answer another end, namely, furnish us with a full 
answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suf- 
fering numberless creatures, that never had sinned, to be so se- 
verely punished? They could not sin, for they were not moral 
agents. Yet how severely do they suffer? Yea, many of them, 
beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their 
abode on earth. So that they can have no retribution here below 
But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something 
better remains after death, for these poor creatures also: that these 
likewise shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corrup- 
tion, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present 
sufferings. 

" One more excellent end may undoubtedly be answered by the 
preceding considerations. They may encourage us to imitate him, 
whose mercy is over all his works. They may soften our hearts 
towards the meaner creatures, knowing that the Lord carethfor 
them. It may enlarge our hearts towards those poor creatures, to 
reflect that as vile as they appear in our eyes, not one of them is 
forgotten in the sight of our heavenly Father." 

These are some of the arguments which fully convinced the 
mind of Mr. Wesley, that the goodness of God will ultimately de- 
liver the unsinning part of the creation from the ravages of sin, and 
place them in a state of undisturbed enjoyment, as was originally 
intended. 

And shall we conclude that his opinion is a dreadful heresy, 
subversive of the very fundamental principles of Christianity? 
Shall we start and draw back from it, as if the very heavens were 
indangeroffalling, oras if all ourhopes of salvation were in danger 
of being destroyed? Are we afraid God should be too kind to his 
suffering creatures, which he created in order that they might be 
happy, and Mhich have never sinned against him? What harm 
would it be to any man or angel, if God should kindly take care of 
sparrows, and restore them to that state of happiness, for which 
his goodness brought them into being, and of which they would 
still have retained the quiet possession, had it not been for the 
wickedness of another order of his creatures? 

Are we afraid of consequences? What are they? One conse- 
quence is, that if God has such a perpetual regard for his mean- 



PLAN OF SALVATION. ^5^ 

est creatures, be will bring to just punishment the wretch that 
takes pleasure in abusing them. Are we afraid of this conse- 
quence? If so, we want the privilege, it seems, to abuse them with 
impunity. Another is, that God delights to see those creatures 
happy, and of course, they were not made solely for our accommo- 
dation, without any regard to their own: They were not created 
merely to serve us a little while, frequently groaning and bleed- 
ing under our tyranny, and then to be cast by into the silent shades 
•f oblivion: hence we are deprived of the selfish pleasure of think- 
ing that God made them through mere partiality to us, without 
any regard to their own enjoyments, which would be the case, if 
he kept them in being only while we wanted their services, 
and afterwards struck them out of existence, merely because we 
have no more occasion to make them our drudges. Perhaps we 
are afraid it will eclipse our glory, if brutes are permitted to live 
forever, which, to be sure, ought to be the sole prerogative of man! 
Were they not originally made to live forever.^ xAnd did it eclipse 
the glory of xAdam, or diminish his prerogative, that various or- 
ders of living creatures were permitted to share with him in the 
blessings of paradise. Would it have increased his dignity, had 
he wished their existence might come to an end, or refused to be- 
lieve that God intended they should enjoy everlasting happiness 
as well as himself and his posterity? 

But we are afraid if men generally believed that beasts will be 
restored to their original state of happiness, they would next be- 
lieve that devils and sinners will be restored from hell; and hence 
they would banish all their fears, and rest contented in their wick- 
edness. They may believe this or any thing else, and it is impos- 
sible for us to hinder them, if they are resolved to disregard all 
evidence, and believe whatever is most suitable to their taste; but 
they will never espouse the latter opinion as a regular conse- 
quence of the former, for there is not as much connexion between 
them as there is between the two poles. 

The sin of devils and men, we say, has involved the brute crea- 
tion in a state of misery; but God will ultimately deliver them 
from it and place them in their original state of happiness: why? 
Because they were not involved by their own fault, but by the 
fault of men and devils. And if God will support the happiness 
©f his innocent creatures, because they are innocent, you conclude 
it is a clear consequence that he will also restore those guilty re- 
bels who are punished on account of their abominations against 
Zz 



35S AN ESSAY ON THE 

the innocent, and for the security of whom, the sentence of justice 
Mas executed upon them! 

It Avas God's regard to the welfare of the innocent that first in- 
fluenced him to send devils and wicked men to hell: how then can 
his regard to the innocent cause him to extend mercy to devils and 
wicked spirits, unless you suppose they have become innocent, 
since they went to hell? 

The dreadful inference we are so much afraid of, could be 
drawn with more plausibility from the doctrine of divine mercy to 
sinners in this world: If I go to hell, says one, God will deliver 
me after a ^^ hile, and take me to heaven: why? Because his nature 
is toshowmerey^for you say he pardons many sinners in this world, 
and sanctifies their nature, and why not in the world to comeP 
The inference would have more appearance of reason, when 
drawn from this doctrine than the others because beasts are inno- 
cent^ and therefore God's regard to them aftbrds no inference in fa- 
vour of the guilty^ but if guilty men are restored from their wretch- 
ed state, aud taken to heaven, sinners may with some appearance 
of plausibility presume, that a similar dispensation w ill obtain in 
that future world to which we are fast approaching. And shall 
we therefore be very cautious how we believe or teach the doc- 
trine of divine mercy to sinners in this world, for fear men will 
take occasion to infer, that devils and damned spirits may also 
obtain forgiveness? If there be a need of caution in the other case, 
there certainly is more in this, because it appears to afford some 
presumption of the kind, which the other does not. 

The fact is, that men, who are determined to love sin more than 
reason and truth, will find pretences enough to silence their con- 
sciences, and will be at no loss to find sophistical arguments to con- 
vince them of what they are resolved to believe at all events. In 
vain may we attempt to guard them against it by suppressing the 
light of evidence, from the groundless fear that the establishment 
of one truth, would lead to a disbelief of another. This were to 
suppose that truth naturally contradicts itself, that one error is 
necessary to guard us against falling into another; that we ought 
to be afraid of the clearest evidence, and finally, that God would 
have the world directed by stratagem, instead of the calm voice of 
reason and revelation. 

Without consuming too much time on this article, Mhich must 
be allowed to be of less importance than many others, I will only 
add one argument which has had the chief influence in producing 
a conviction in my mind, that God will restore the animal crea- 
tion to a state of perpetual happiness. It is this: 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 359 

The animals were originally made to enjoy a happy existence; 
had it not been for the sin of others, misery and death would never 
have been introduced among them: of course divine goodness pre- 
pared for them a state of felicity, which was interrupted by the 
works of the devil: Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the 
devil, and will reign till all enemies are put under his feet: but it* 
innocent animals are totally deprived of that happy existence 
which God intended for them to enjoy forever, the devil has suc- 
ceeded in destroying the works of God, the innocent not excepted. 
If those innocent creatures are never restored, it must be because 
God cannot restore them, or because he will not; if he cannot do it, 
it would seem that the devil has overcome his power; and if he 
will not, the old serpent has caused him to abandon the original 
purpose of his goodness towards millions of his unoftending crea- 
tures. 

This consequence cannot be set aside, without affirming that 
the beasts were originally made for destruction. Nor can it be 
retorted, by recurring to the state of men and angels: for it was 
not the original design of God that they should enjoy everlasting 
happiness, but upon condition of their obedience; whereas no con- 
dition of obedience was enjoined on the inferior animals, and 
therefore, unless we suppose they were originally made to be de- 
stroyed or annihilated, they will be restored; otherwise you say 
the devil has caused their Creator to alter his mind concerning 
them. 

As to men and angels, it was the design of God that they should 
stand responsible for their moral conduct, and be dealt with ac- 
cording to their works, by the law of his holy and unchangeable 
attributes: this design has never been frustrated, and never will 
be to eternity. 



SECTION XIL 

Of the Divine Sovereignty, 

It may be necessary, before we close this part of the subject, to 
notice a favourite argument of our opponents, founded upon the 
Divine Sovereignty. 



360 AN ESSAY ON THE 

<'God, say they, has an undoubted right to do what he will with 
his own; he is not bound to make any creature happy, much less to 
restore those who have fallen from a state of rectitude: therefore 
he ha^ the just prerogative to receive one and pass by another, 
according to his own good pleasure. Shall the thing formed, say 
to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" To this 
we would answer: 

1. The English word, sovereign, signifies, supreme in power, 
having no superior. Sovereignty, supremacy, highest place, highest 
degree of excellence.* 

By the divine sovereignty then, we understand, that God is su- 
preme in power, authority and excellence: consequently when his 
power is exercised to maintain his authority, according to the 
moral excellence of hi^ nature, his sovereignty is secured. The 
moment we charge him with using his power in opposition to his 
excellence, or moral attributes, we charge him with renouncing 
the sovereign glory of his nature; and when we plead that he has 
a right to do so, we suppose he has a right to cease being God, 
3,nd to imitate the king of the bottomless pit, who delights in the 
exercise of a despotic sovereignty, that has no connexion with 
moral goodness. 

2. Justice, truth and benevolence, are essential attributes of Al- 
mighty God, or they are not; to say they are not, is to leap into 
atheism, or into the belief of a God totally destitute of every prin- 
ciple of morality, which is still worse than atheism: but if those 
attributes are essential to the divine nature, then to say God has a 
right to depart from them, is to say he has a right to abandon that 
which is essential to his nature, to change himself into another 
deity, of an opposite nature, and to govern his actions by the evil 
principles which predominate in the devil and his angels. Will he 
he pleased with any creature for imputing this to him, and for 
labouring to vindicate his right to such a gloomy and terrifying 
supremacy? 

3 The word tyrannous or tyrannical, according to Walker, signi- 
fies despotic, arbitrary, severe. Tyrant, an absolute monarch gov- 
erningimperiously; a cruel, despotic and severe master. According 
to the same author, the word arbitrary means despotic, absolute; 
depending pn no rule-, capricious. Arbitrarily, with no other rule 
than the will; despotically; absolutely. 

Hence it appears that a tyrant is one "who governs his actions 
by no other rule than his own will, and who fancies he has a right 



See Walker's Dictionary. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 361 

to do 50 arising out of his sovereign prerogative, as absolute mon- 
arch:*" his vassals, on the contrary, must have no uiil, or no other 
rule of action, than a regular intention to submit to his will in all 
things he is pleased to enjoin, for no other reason but because it is 
bis will. 

Thus a tyrant departs from all moral principles himself, and 
demands of his subjects also to depart from them, and to make 
his will the sole role of their actions. They may indeed do moral 
actions in those cases where his will happens not to interfere: but 
even then, they must not do them from a regard to morality, but 
from a regard to his will: and whenever he shall will their depar- 
ture from any righteous action, they must give it up. and consider 
his sovereign pleasure alone as the foundation of all right and of 
all obligation. 

Were we to plead for such a right as this in behalf of such per- 
sons as Xero. Caligula or Bishop Bonner, they would doubtless be 
pleased with us, and consider us as very acceptable advocates for 
their sovereign prerogative. I am apt to imagine that the old 
prince of darkness has also been in the habit of claiming this so- 
Tereign right for some thousands of years, and that he is ambi- 
tious to govern without being limited by any other rule than that 
of his own will. But what good man will presume, upon second 
thoughts, that the benevolent Author of this great universe will be 
pleased to hear us advocate his supposed right to transform him- 
self into the nature and character of an arbitrary tyrant.- Who can, 
without horror, consider the depth of blasphemy there is in the 
supposition, that God has a right to transform himself into a devil.^ 
And what creature of God will do such violence to the immediate 
dictates of his intellectual faculties, as to believe it possible for 
any being to have a right to do wrong.- In other words, that a be- 
ing does right in doing wrong: or that right is wrong and wrong is 
right; or in other words, 'Hhat there is no distinction between right 
and wrong, and that sovereign will may do any thing, every thing, 
or nothing. 

4. To suppose God may do any thing, because he possesses 
Almighty power, is to suppose right has its origin in power: that 
is, that the reason why a being has a right to do any thing, is that 
he has power to do it. Take away his power, and you take away 
his right: enlarge his power and his right is enlarged in exact pro- 
portion. 

.. This doctrine was advocated by Mr. Hobbes: and it is very pleas- 
ing to every tyrant in the world; fur if this be true, it of course 



36^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

follows, that the tyrant never did any wrong in his life, because he 
never did any thing beyond his power, and therefore it could not 
be beyond his right, seeing right grows out of power, and out of 
nothing else. 

Upon this atheistic hypothesis all men have a right to do any 
thing and every thing in their power, because the power is the on- 
ly thing that supports right, seeing right naturally grows out of it. 
I have a right to take away any man's liberty or life, provided on- 
ly that I have power to do it; and any other man has a right to 
take my liberty or life, whenever he may happen to have it in his 
power. Thus all moral principles are destroyed, all obligation 
eeases, and despotic tyranny is the only God that is to be worship- 
ped in either earth or heaven. 

The truth is, that the principle of right is as uncreated, eter- 
nal, and unchangeable as God himself, because it is an essential 
principle of his immutable nature^. To say God has a right to act 
in opposition to his eternal Attribute of justice, appears to be 
equal in blasphemy with the supposition, "that God has a right 
to destroy himself. 

5, It is granted, that "God worketh all things after the counsel 
©f his own will;" because his perpetual will is to do every thing 
according to his immutable justice, truth and benevolence. But 
because our Saviour represents the Lord of the hired servants as 
saying, "may I not do what I will w ith my own," some appear to 
imagine he means that God has a right to do any thing with his 
creatures, because they are his own. Whereas it is evident from 
the parable, that the master had no reference to the labourers, for 
they were nothis own. seeing they had voluntarily entered into his 
service for a stipulated price. By the term, my own, was meant 
his money, which he had a right to bestow as a favour, or to with- 
hold it at his option. 

It is true, all creatures belong to God; but has he a right to pu- 
nish the holy angels with everlasting damnation because they are 
his own.^ If so, it would appear, that if the devil had power to 
create sensible or conscious creatures, and were to do so in order 
to torment them in the flames of hell forever, he would have a 
right to do it because they would be his own. The only reasoa 
why he has not the right to do this, is that he has not the power: 
thus we are brought back to Mr. Hobbes's atheistic theory again, 
thai right grows out of power. 

God justly claims all men and angels as his own: that is, they 
are his own servants, or the subjects of his government, and he has 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 263 

a right to demand obedience from them in proportion to the know- 
ledge and power he has given them, and according to the princi- 
ples of his moral law. But to say he has a right to deceive tliem 
by lying, to accuse and condemn them falsely, or to punish them 
for nothing, but the gratification of his sovereign pleasure, because 
they are his own, is to say God is a tyrant, and that he has a right 
to be so. 

All creatures hold their existence and happiness by a grant of 
benevolence; but their right of exemption from jjenal torments, they 
claim from eternal justice, so long as they continue innocent: here 
they have a proper right of demand, inseparable from their being, 
as innocent creatures; and their Creator is bound in justice not to 
violate their right. 

If we deny this, we say the creatures of God, when they rebell- 
ed against his government, forfeited no right thereby, seeing they 
had no right to forfeit; of course they were no more exposed t« 
punishment, in justice, then they were before; because the sove- 
reign pleasure is supposed the only ground of their happiness or 
misery, and if tlie supreme will should so determine, it might be 
made just for them to be rewarded for their wickedness, and pun^ 
ished for keeping the commandments. The Almighty Sovereign 
might, if it should happen to be his good pleasure, make guilt con- 
sist in loving justice, mercy and truth, and make innocence con- 
sist in falsehood, and in hating every thing that is just and good. 
He might restore all devils from the lake of hell, and reward them 
with crowns of glory for their profound abhorrence of all morali- 
ty; he might at the same time send all his holy angels into hell, 
together with the spirits of just men made perfect, to suffer the 
vengeance of eternal fire, as the due wages of their want of malice; 
and all this would be as perfectly just and righteous as any thing 
that has been done since the creation, provided the sovereign will 
should fix it SO; which is supposed to be the only standard of justice 
in the universe. 

6. We grant God is not bound to pardon and save any sinner, by 
any right in the sinner, to demand salvation at his hand; and 
hence it is concluded by our opponents, that their <loctrine is con- 
ceded, namely, that he may save one, and pass by another, for no 
other reason but his own good pleasure; and no creature can have 
a just ground of complaint. His gratuitous act of eleciingone, and 
neglecting another, they call his sovereign grace; but the proper 
name of it is sovereign partiality. 



264 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Sovereign grace is the grace, or favour, exercised by a sovereign: 
it has been shown that God's sovereignty consists in his supreme 
right to govern his creatures, not as a tyrant, but according to his 
holy and unchangeable attributes. It remains for us to inquire 
whether partiality is to be considered as one of the attributes of 
God, or whether it necessarily arises out of them. 

By partiality I here mean "a disposition to limit favours to cer- 
tain individuals, and to withhold them from others under similar 
circumstances, for no reason but arbitrary will or pleasure. Does 
such a disposition belong to God.^ I hope the following reflections 
will serve to decide this question in the negative: 

1. Supposing God is not bound to be impartial in bestowing his 
favours, does it follow from this that he is disposed to be partial, or 
that he ever will be so? Is not benevolence as dear to him as jus- 
tice, and is he any more disposed, in any case, to depart from the 
former than the latter.^ 

2, Suppose two sinners stand before God, equally needy, and 
whose salvation would equally accord with justice: if he save one, 
and pass by the other, only because he will do so, in this act of 
passing by, he shows such a deficiency in the love of goodness, 
that he will not be kind to this person, when there is no moral ob- 
struction. It is not for the sake of benevolence surely, that he re- 
fuses in this case to be benevolent; it is not for the sake of justice, 
because the salvation of one is supposed to accord with justice as 
well as that of the other; It is not for the sake of truth, unless 
some one will undertake to prove that God has declared he will be 
partial, and pass by some sinners whose salvation would perfectly 
accord both with justice and benevolence; therefore in such an act 
of partiality he would have no regard to any moral principle, 
and consequently the action would result from some private and 
selfish one, that is regardless of all morality. 

5. Though it be granted that God is not bound to be impartial, 
frouL any right of demand in sinners, yet he has graciously bound 
himself by pledging his own character that he will always act ac- 
cording to the harmony of all his attributes. He has fairly and 
openly stated the conditions on which pardon is to be granted, 
and has declared that "whosoever will, may take of the waters of 
life freely;" if, therefore, he has made any secret reserves and ab- 
solute resolutions or decrees, that Adam's race shall not be equally 
welcome; if he has a revealed will, proclaiming most unequivocally 
that " he delighteth not in the death of the wicked, but would 
have all men come to repentance," and at the same time his secret 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 865 

tvill and pleasure is that a majority shall be unconditionally ex- 
cludedfrom the possibility of salvation, what an hypocritical char- 
acter does he display before his holy angelsl And before men too; 
for it seems men have found out his secret will, and published it 
abroad, notwithstanding his design to keep it secret. How they 
obtained access to the secret cabinet, I have not been informed; 
but be that as it may, they have made the thing public, and have 
let the world into the mystery of God's "holy simulation." 

4. The most selfish tyrant in the world is capable of this kind of 
benevolence. He can bestow favours sometimes, when it suits his 
humour, or when it may be thought in any manner to subserve his 
selfish purposes; but if he frequently neglects others in similar 
circumstances, for no other reason but because he will, it is clear 
his favours are not bestowed from principle, or from a regard to 
general happiness, but merely from a regard to his sovereign plea- 
sure: that is, from a desire to gratify the pride and selfishness of 
his own heart. He bestows favours on some, and passes by others, 
merely and solely because it is his will to do so; then his will is 
not regulated by any regard to the principle of benevolence, for 
that principle would apply to all those cases alike: not from a re- 
gard to justice, for the persons whom he passed by, might have 
been relieved as consistently withjustice as the others: his actions 
flow from a selfish principle, and he is as destitute of mora! good- 
ness in bestowing his favours as in withholding them; because both 
actions flow from the same principle, and that is a proud desire to 
gratify and display his own sovereign pleasure. 



SECTION XIIL 

The same subject* 

Thk present objection supposes God to be ambitious to esta- 
blish himself at the head of a party. Moral principles are uni- 
yersal in their application: justice is not limited to a part of man- 
kind; and benevolence does not consist in the blind attachments of 
party spirit, but in such a regard to general happiness as inlluen- 
ees a person to extend happiness as far as he is able to extend it 
consistently with justice. While a person is governed by those 
3 A 



36ft AN ESSAY ON THE 

principles, his actions and motives have relation to the community 
in general, and admit of* no arbitrary selection of particular 
parties. 

But in our degenerate world we see party spirit prevail both in 
church and state, and triumph over every principle of righteous- 
ness. Thousands have a humorous fondness for one party, and a 
proportional disgust and antipathy against another, which make 
them blind to the clearest evidence. 

They are willing truth should prevail, so far as it may accord 
with the support of their own party; but their opponents must be 
hindered from speaking the truth, and no faith is to be kept with 
heretics. They are very tenacious of the rights of justice, on their 
own side; but they are unwilling others should have equal rights, 
and wish justice to be a limited principle, confined to particular par- 
ties. They are very benevolent also, provided it be true that bene- 
volence consists in bestowing favours on their side of the house, 
for the gratification of their partiality, or their party spirit^ 
w hich is the same thing; but as to a general love, that delights to 
bless all needy objects alike, without respect of persons, this is a 
stranger to their bosom. 

Thus it is evident that party spirit or partiality is hostile to 
every righteous principle. All such principles are universal in 
their nature, and a proper regard to justice, truth and benevolence^ 
arises Dut of o. general love that delights to make all individuals 
happy, who can be made so without violating the rights of others. 
Whereas partiality is a limited, selfish love, which delights to 
make justice, truth and benevolence, subservient to the. blind at- 
tachments and arbitrary decisions of a despotic will. 

This spirit is truly the mother of abominations. It causes us to 
be blind to the faults and absurdities of our own party; it causes us 
to do violence to our reason and conscience, to suppress and hate 
all truth and all evidence, unless it be favourable to our own side: 
it causes us unmercifully tojudg^the other side, and to impute 
crimes to them according to our sovereign pleasure: it causes us to 
monopolize the rights of justice to ourselves: it causes us to limit 
our favours according to the selfish dictate of our partiality, and 
to be envious at the prosperity of our opponents. In short, it pro- 
duces a blind, unreasonable, and idolatrous fondness for our fa- 
vourites, and a corresponding animosity against the objects whom 
our arbitrary will singles out for reprobation. As the blind attach- 
ment rises for one side, a secret malice rises against the other in 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 367 

exact proportion; and thus every moral virtue is made to yield to 
the selfish fury of party malevolence. 

This gave rise to the furious bigotry of the Scribes and Phari- 
sees: they laboured to confine all right and all the blessings of 
salvation to the Jewish party; and to detest the Gentiles, to perse- 
cute them, and fondly to consider them as outcasts from God, fit 
only to be taken and destroyed. 

It gave rise to the bloody scenes of popery. They confined sal- 
vation to themselves; they fancied that God's partiality confined 
all his eternal favours to their holy church, and that he had a 
corresponding abhorrence for all heretics. That is, they fancied he 
was altogether such an one as themselves. They believed they 
had rights, but that others had not equal rights. They believed 
men ought to be benevolent and kind, but not to heretics. It was 
right to be sincere, to tell the truth, and keep our word; but no 
faith is to be kept with heretics. Thus the god of party was wor- 
shipped, till all regard to moral principles was given up, and here- 
tics were destroyed by the most excruciating tortures, and with a 
fond belief that God's unchangeable hatred and malice against 
them was equal to their own; and of course that they would all 
burn in the flames of hell forever. 

AVherever malice and persecution have prevailed in any sect or 
country, it has risen from devotion to the same God. It matters 
not whether it appear under the garb of piety, zeal fdr God, liber- 
ty, patriotism, a design to enlighten the world, to suppress priest- 
craft and superstition, or any other hypocritical pretension. — 
It is the same thing under all those names, and manifests itself 
by its fruits. It is such a blind and vehement fondness for our 
party, and such habitual and settled malevolence against others, 
as leads us to sacrifice truth, justice and benevolence, to build up 
one party and pull down the other. This, as all experience shows, 
is the nature and tendency of partiality. 

Is it possible that good men can believe, upon second thoughts, 
that there is any such principle in the Lord our Maker? Surely 
such unbecoming thoughts of God must be rejected by every re- 
flecting mind. But I think it is not hard to discover that the elect- 
ing love, sovereign pleasure, and secret will, so often spoken of, 
are nothing more than other names substituted for arbitrary par- 
tiality, and the disposition is the same under every appellation. 

God's will, in relation to his creatures, is always regulated by 
his moral attributes, or it is not; if it is, he is always disposed to 
make every creature happy, so far as it will accord with justice: 



3es ^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

if it is wot, he sometimes departs from the perfections of his na- 
ture, and is influenced by some secret principle totally distinct 
from tliem. 

I think we may safely conclude upon the whole, that partiality, 
subversive of all righteousness, arises out of a selfish heart, and 
that so far as a ruler is disposed to be tyrannical, so far he de- 
sires and needs a secret will, in opposition to the will which he is 
pleased to make known, and by which he prof esses to regulate hii 
administration. 

I know it may be urged, that God has in fact exercised partiali- 
ty in giving the ditt'erent capacities and means of happiness which 
he has given to different orders of his creatures. 

But this supposes partiality can be exercised towards creatures 
before they exist, and if so, it can be exercised toward a nonentity. 
Nothing can be more absurd than for the thing formed to say to 
him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Because this 
supposes we had rights or claims upon the divine attributes before 
we were created. If partiality can be exercised towards a now- 
e/iti^i!/, the objection would still hold, though God had made all 
creatures of the same order; for it might be said, how many mil- 
lions of creatures might be created that are still in a state of non- 
existence? 8urely God is partial, or he would not leave those crea- 
tures which might be made, in a state of nonentity, while these 
are in a state of happy existence! 

And if God^s having given beasts a small capacity of happiness, 
is a proof of his partiality, his conduct towards stones and trees is 
a stiii greater proof of it, because he has given them no capacity of 
happiness. 

The partiality opposed in these pages, consists in an arbitrary 
will to bestow favours on some, and neglect others, who equally 
need such favours, and who stand in the same moral relation t© 
him who bestows thern. But as to the kind or degree of capacity 
creatures were to has'e, it has no connexion with the subject: for 
before our existence we were in need of nothing, and had no rela- 
tion to moral principles. 

The Lord gives the light and assistance of his holy spirit to a 
mcin, and withholds this blessing from a beast: there is no partiali- 
ty in this, because the beast does not need spiritual grace, as the 
man does, nor does it stand in the same moral relation to God.— • 
But the Ci^se of two or more sinners, who equally need pardon and 
sajvation, and whose salvation v^ould equally accord with the 
general welfare, is so entirely dift'ereut f^o^l the cases alleged 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 369 

in the objection, that it requires no uncommon discernment to 
perceive that this futile argument has no just bearing upon the 
doctrine defended in the present section. 

Bui because some men have greater advantages than others 

during their existence on earth, it is presumed by some, that this 

results solely from God^s sovereign pleasure; and if distinguish' 

ing grace makes such a difterence in this life, why not in the life 

to come? Answer: 

If our opponents will prove that God has no moral reason for 
the various dispensations of his grace and providence, but merely 
his arbitrary will; — if they clearly evince that he has no regard to 
the general welfare, and the greatest good of his creatures upon 
the whole, in the variety manifested in the course of his provi- 
dence in the present world; — we will then grant that a principle 
of arbitrary sovereignty governs his actions, and in all probabili- 
ty the same partiality may extend to a future state. But if they 
cannot prove this, if the contrary be true, that God has benevo- 
lent intentions, to which this order in his works in the present 
world is perpetually subservient, no particular fact under his go- 
vernment can be produced as a proof of his partiality. And they 
are bound to prove this point, before their conclusion can be ad- 
mitted, as much as infidels are bound to prove the same thing, be- 
fore their conclusions can be admitted, concerning the caprice, or 
folly, or injustice that appears, as they imagine, in the Almighty's 
method of governing this world. 

If they say it is incumbent on us to prove that God has such be- 
nevolent intentions in the different gifts and advantages conferred 
upon men in the present life, and to reconcile the seeming partial- 
ities of his administration with the doctrine here advanced; our 
answer is short. 

The moral attributes of God are proved by the testimony of re- 
velation, and by every other source of evidence, the great Crea- 
tor, possessed of these perfections, is unchangeable, the same 
yesterday, to-day, and forever; of course he never departs from 
them for a moment; but partiality is opposite in its nature and ten- 
dency to the divine perfections, as has just been proved, 1 hope to 
the satisfaction of every candid reader; therefore no such partial!* 
ty is ever exercised by our Maker in any ease, however some cases 
may have the appearance of it to our limited conceptions. 

As to the difficulty of reconciling the disorders of the present 
world with the divine nature, we must either resolve it into our 
ewn ignorance, or we must charge God foolishly; and it ill becomes 



S70 AN ESSAY ON THE 

a christian to draw his conclusions against God, from certain tem- 
porary appearances which he does not understand, and is incapa- 
ble of comprehending, in their relation to the whole. This is truly 
the deistical method of reasoning; and it is a method which has 
been Tery fruitful of unreasonable and atheistical conclusions. 

A father of a family or ruler of a state may exhibit abundant 
evidence to his children or subjects, of the goodness and impartial- 
ity of his character, and yet some particular cases may occur, con- 
cerning which they may be incapable of entering into the views of 
the benevolent ruler, and may consider them as deviations from 
wisx^lom and goodness, merely because they are ignorant of their 
tendency, and of their relation to the general welfare. A foolish 
child will hastily conclude that such cases are proofs of his pa- 
rent's unkindness or cruelty; but he who accustoms his mind to can- 
did reflection, will conclude they are proofs of his own ignorance, 
and ought not, in any degree, to weaken his confidence in the pa- 
rent or governor, while so much evidence exists of the general 
goodness of his character. 

We have intuitive conviction that the First Cause, or Supreme 
Being must necessarily be so completely above the blind and sel- 
fish principles of action which govern ignorant sinners, that "h« 
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." The 
same fundamental truth is established by the unequivocal evidence 
©f revelation. "NVe also perceive the signs of wisdom and benevo- 
lence in the visible creation, so far as we are able to take a gene- 
ral view of it, and could that view be comprehensive and complete, 
how would we be transported with the prospect! But a prejudiced 
and narrow mind neglects that patient reflection which would ena- 
ble him to draw his conclusions from an enlarged and general 
view of things, and, confining himself to some particular parts, 
without attending to the clear signs of goodness in the whole, con- 
cludes very absurdly that God is partial or unjust. This conclu- 
sion depends upon the truth of the principle, "that the particular 
case under consideration has no tendency to subserve the purpo- 
ses of justice or mercy." And can any one produce the least evi- 
dence of this? If not, there is no evidence to support the conclusion; 
and the belief of it can only result from the dictates of a haughty 
mind, which pretends to understand the government of this uni- 
verse as well as God Almighty understands it. 

In this sophistical manner atheists have reasoned against the 
creation, and deists against the bible. God favours some men or 
some nations more than others, with his natural or supernatural 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 371 

blessiugs in this life; therefore many conclude that this rariety doe« 
not flow from a benevolent intention to produce the greatest gen- 
eral good in future, but from an essential principle of partiality in 
God. 

And many christians, it seems, inadvertently give full sanction 
to these unjust reproaches against heaven, and then hope to mend 
the matter by pleadiug that God has a right to deviate from his 
moral attributes, and to regulate all things by his sovereign plea- 
sure! Infidels and christians agree in the premises, and in the 
first conclusion, namely, that God is a partial being: the unbeliev- 
er, perceiving that partiality is a source of every kind of wicked- 
ness in the world, concludes that the Author of nature is an im- 
moral being, which sentiment he soon exchanges for atheism. The 
christian takes another course, and insists that God has a sove- 
reign right to be partial, and to confine himself to no rule of ac- 
tion but his own capricious and independent will. They think this 
principle alone fixes the unconditional and eternal destinies, both 
of men and angels. If some men are saved, and others damned, it 
is because God eternally predestinated the fate of each by his so- 
vereign or arbitrary w ill. If some angels keep their first estate, 
and others lose it, the reason is, that the former were always the 
favourite objects of electing love, and the latter of reprobating 
animosity. If human sinners are redeemed and restored from their 
fallen condition, and angelic sinners are not, this also must be re- 
solved into the same distinguishing grace, or electing partiality, 
as the only reason or principle in the divine nature which made a 
difference between angels and men, as it respects the benefits of re- 
demption. 

Thus all the links of predestination hang together, and we must 
receive the whole, or totally reject the principle of partiality from 
whence they flow; and maintain that God has never departed from 
a pure regard to general happiness in any act of his administra- 
tion, towards angels, or men, or any other creatures in exis- 
tence. 

As to the fallen angels, God has not seen fit to give us an ac- 
count of the particulars of their apnstacy. In what manner the 
divine forbearance was manifested towards them wc know not; 
the nature, extent, and aggravating circumstances of their crimes 
we know not; but if any man shall have the assurance to affirm 
that they were passed by, through sovereign partiality, m hen they 
might have had a merciful probation granted, consistently with 
every moral principle: we may safely dpfy him to support an hy- 



372 AN ESSAY ON THE 

potliesis so unworthy of God, from scripture or from any other 
source of human knowledge. 

As to the passages of scripture which speak of the variety of 
the Almighty's dispensations of grace and providence here below, 
and which have been pressed into the service of predestinarian 
sovereignty, they have been sufficiently examined by Mr. Fletcher 
and others, to whom I must refer the reader, and have been shown 
to accord perfectly with the general tenor of the scriptures, that 
"the Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his 
works." — Psalm cxlv. 9. 



PLAX OF SALVATIOX, 273 



CHAPTER T. 

97 THE MEAXS OR COXDITIOKS THROUGH WHICH WE RECEIVB 
THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST's ATONEMEXT. 



SECTION I. 
•fl general view of faith. 

H ATixG considered the great lore wherewith oar heavenly far- 
ther hath loved as, and the fulness of redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus, for the salvation of mankind: it remains for us to notice the 
conditions on which we are to receive the benefits of Christ's 
atonement, and to enforce them upon the understanding and af- 
fections, by the interesting and powerful motives exhibited in the 
gospel. 

Among all the terms of acceptance we find stated in the scrip- 
tures, none is so often mentioned, and so particularly and solemn- 
ly enjoined, as that of believing, or the right exercise of faith ia 
the Lord Jesus Christ. This is rightly represented as the root o^ 
all christian virtues. It is urged upon us by our Saviour and his 
apostles as the grand instrument or condition of our pardon, sanc- 
tification, and perpetual victory over the worlds and it ' ^o indis- 
pensable in every stage of oar progress to heaven, that "witkout 
faith it is impossible to please God." It is therefore a matter of 
the first importance for us to understand this essential doctrine of 
the gospel, on which our eternal welfare so manifestly depends. 

To be[lei'e a report, to give it credit^ or to have faith in it, are 
terras well understood by men in general: but they are terras not 
capable of what is called a logical definition. We know that be- 
lieving IS an act or decision of the mind concerning what is true 
or false; all correct faith has truth for its object, and that \>hieh 
takes falsehood for truth, is a mistaken belief or delusion; but a 
correct belief may exist in various degrees, and may produce vari- 
ous efifects, according to the nature of the truth it embraces. 

Those words are used by the inspired writers in different senses, 
and many I apprehend have confounded those differentappliealions 
9f the word faith, or believing, or not sufUeiently diatingaished 
3B 



37i AN ESSAY ON THE 

them, and have thereby brought great confusion into their own 
conceptions, and bewildered the minds of others. 

The term faith, is sometimes applied to a single act of believ- 
ing, on a particular occasion; at other times, to a continued act^ 
or habitual adherence to the truth. 

It is sometimes applied to the simple assent of the understand- 
ing; at other times, it means an adherence to truth, by the united 
embrace of the understanding and affections. In some passages it 
applies to the act of believiug; in others, to the object of it; and in 
others, to the effects of it. 

That the words sometimes apply to a single act, on a particular 
occasion, will be readily admitted; and I need only refer to Acts 
xiv. 9. and Matt. viii. 13. for an example. 

But when the promise of eternal life is connected with our 
faith or believing, those words are applied to the continued and 
habitual state of the mind. "He that belie veth [perseveringlyj 
shall be saved." Markxvi. 16. 

"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of 
them that believe to the saving of the soul." Heb. x. 39. "That is, 
we are not of them who for a while believe, and in time of temp- 
tation fall away, like those mentioned." Luke viii. 13. "Butweareof 
those who continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and are not 
moved away from the hope of the gospel." Col. i. 23. "This is 
the will of him that sent me," says our Saviour, "that every one 
which seeth. the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting 
life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John vi. 4Q. The 
term, believeth on him, evidently signifies a continued aet, or habit 
of belie-', .t^^; for eternal life is not promised to those who "make 
shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" but to those who "con- 
tinue in the faith, and through much tribulation, enter into the 
kingdom of God." Acts xiv. 22. 

Faith sometimes means a bare assent of the understanding, and 
many who never were justified, or even awakened to a convictioH 
of the evil nature of sin, are said to have believed. This is evi- 
dent from Acts viii. 13. "Then Simon himself believed also; and 
when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered, 
beholding the miracles and signs which were done." And yet it is 
obvious from the context, that he was all the while "in the gall of 
bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Verse 23. 

"King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets.^ I know that thou 
believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuad- 
est me to be a christian." Acts xxvi. 27. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. B75 

That many are said to have believed, who continued in a state 
of condemnation, is still more evident from John xii. 42. "Never- 
theless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him; bat be- 
cause of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should 
be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men 
more than the praise of God." Will any one say those persons, 
who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, and re- 
fused to confess Christ before men,, were really in a state of ac- 
ceptance or justification? 

There are thousands of such believers at the present day: they 
have believed in Christianity from their youth, and continue still 
to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of 
sinners. And yet they are ashamed of Christ and his words be- 
fore an adulterous and sinful generation, and love the praise of 
men more than the praise of God. They are yet in their sins, and 
the wrath of God abideth on them. How can it then be said that 
all that believe are justified, and have passed from death unto 
life.^ To answer this question, we must consider in what the de- 
ficiency of this faith consists, and wherein it differs from that 
which is imputed to us for righteousness. 

The deficiency consists in its want of energy, as a principle of 
action, to move the affections, and regulate the conduct. The 
faith which God requires, is not merely an indifferent assent of the 
mind, as a principle of speculative knowledge; but it is that which 
is influential as a principle of action, to excite the affections, to 
work by love, and to purify the heart. "For as the body without 
the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Jam. ii. 26. 

The cause of this deficiency is the false foundation on which 
their faith is built. Evidence is not the ground of their belief, and 
though the object of it be true, yet it is not for the sake of truth 
they believe it: they have never examined the evidence, nor felt 
any solicitude to understand it; but they believe merely for the 
sake of being in the fashion, or through some other sinister mo- 
tive; their faith, therefore, is not the dictate of candour, which re- 
gulates the belief by evidence, but the dictate of prejudice or bigot- 
ry, which influences men to believe things, not for the sake of 
their being true, but for the sake of their subserviency to some 
private and selfish gratification. 

Many believe the scriptures, because they can appeal to the 
scriptures, for the support of their party; and the support of their 
party is essential to the support of their popularity, as well as to 
many other private advantages. They believe Christ is the Son of 



376 AN ESSAY ON THE 

God, and the Saviour of the world, not because they feel any need 
of a Saviour, or any solicitude to examine the evidence of bis mis- 
sion, but because it is the belief of their relations and neighbours; 
to disbeJieve would be unfashionable, and they esteem it better to 
be out of the world than to be out of the fashion. They dogmati- 
cally believe the doctrine of the Trinity, justification by faith, and 
the new-birth; not because they have any concern to understand 
these matters, or to know their evidence and importance; but be- 
cause they have been the distinguishing tenets of their fathers 
and ancestors for some centuries, and because the belief of them is 
necessary, to distinguish them from Infidels, Socinians, and other 
beretics. Thus their faith is good for nothing, because it does not 
arise from a regard to truth, but from a regaixl to something else. 

Others may believe from the influence of evidence which they 
cannot resist, as many of the Jews did; but their want of candour 
influences them to suppress the evidence, or to neglect an honest 
pursuit of it, for fear of losing their popularity; "for they love the 
praise of men more than the praise of God." Such believers are 
as deficient as the others, because they are equally destitute of a 
pure regard to truth. 

This view of the subject is not only confirmed by experience 
and daily observation, but also by our Lord's express declaration 
to the Jews. "How can ye believe," says he, "which receive hon- 
our one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God 
only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is 
one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye 
believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my worths?" 
John v. 44. &c. 

Are we to infer from this, that the Jews did not believe the 
writings of Moses? They surely appealed to Moses on all occa- 
sions, and believed in his divine mission, and his writings, with a 
most bigoted and dogmatical assurance. This our Saviour plainly 
intimates, when he says, even Moses, in whom ye trust. They 
could not surely trust in him, if they had no faith in his writings. 
And yet it is added immediately, "had ye believed Moses, ye would 
have believed me: for he wrote of me." The solution is easy: the 
Jews believed in Moses, just as Simon the sorcerer believed in Je- 
sus, as "many of the chief rulers believed on him," and as thou- 
sands in our days believe in his religion: that is, they believed in 
Moses, not for the sake of the truth contained in his writings, but 
for the sake of supporting their party, their popularity, and their 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 377 

fond presumptions, that God's partiality confined all the promises 
to their holy nation, to the exclusion of all Gentile heretics. Had 
they examined the Avritings of Moses with candour, and with an 
honest and sincere desire to know the truth, they would have be- 
lieved in another manner; the truth thus rightly attended to would 
have had its efteet: it would have produced a conviction of iheir 
hostility to the essential doctrines of Moses: it would have enlight- 
ened their understanding, under the divine influence, and have 
given them to see and feel the importance of those matters, and of 
their deep interest in them: it w ould have led them to examine the 
prophecies relating to the Messiah, with a candid desire to enter 
into their meaning: hence their faith, having this proper influence 
upon their aftections and conduct, would have led them honestly 
to compare the writings of Moses with the doctrine and miracles 
of the Redeemer, which would have produced a sincere and hear- 
ty belief in his divinity. Had the Jews thus believed the writings 
of Moses, they would have believed in Christ: for Moses wrote of 
him. ^ 

The apostle tells us, "The end of the commandment is charity, 
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeign- 
ed." 1 Tim. i. 5. Again he says, "I call to remembrance the un- 
feigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother 
Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee 
also." 2 Tim. i. 5. 

From this the inference is clear, that there is such a thing as 
feigned faith, and that the excellency of Timothy's faith consisted 
in it.s being unfeigned. When a man's faith is regulated by a re- 
gard to truth, and by a candid sujvey of its evidence and impor- 
tance; when it arises from a sincere desire and honest intention to 
seek the truth, and to follow it without prejudice or partiality; 
this faith is unfeigned, and will never fail to influence the att'ec- 
tions, and regulate the conduct of its possesser. 

This is the faith required in the gospel. That sincerity and 
honesty of mind, which yields to the force of evidence, and which 
searches into the truth of God, with a willingness to sacrifice eve- 
ry prejudice for its sake, is well pleasing in the sight of God; be- 
cause it admits truth into the aftections as well as the understand- 
ing, and- leads us to abandon those beloved vices which are hos- 
tile to all goodness, and to submit ourselves to the gracious gov- 
ernment of our Redeemer. That the faith which is required to 
justification and eternal happiness, is of this description, and im- 
.plies the united exercise of the understanding and aftections, in 



375 AN ES8AY ON THE 

our embrace of the truth, is evident from the general tenor of the 
scriptures. "And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart, 
thou mayest. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Acts viii. 
37. Rom. X. 10. 

We have t>aid the term faith, or believing, is sometimes appli- 
ed to the object of it. This might be proved by many passages: 
but let it suffice to produce only a few. 

"By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedi- 
ence to the faith among all nations.'' Rom. i, 5. Here obedience 
to the faith means, obedience to the gospel, or to the doctrines of 
Christ, who is the object of our faith. 

"Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven.^ [that is, 
to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the 
deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.] But what 
saith it.^ The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy 
iiei^rt: that is, the w ord of faith which we preach." Rom. x. 8, &c. 
The word oi' faith which we preach, evidently means Christ the 
object of faith, who is nigh thee, and not afar off in heaven or in 
the deep. 

" He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the 
faith which once he destroyed." That is, he now preacheth the 
doctrines of Christ crucified, which once he opposed with great 
rage and bigotry." — Gal. i. 23. 

" But after that faith is come [that is, after Christ is come 
with the revelation of his gospel] we are no longer under a school- 
master." — Gal. iii. 25. 

Lastly, the term is sometimes used and intended to include the 
whole effects of faith, and is not to be limited merely to the exer- 
cise of the mind in believing. 

<• Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith:" that is, 
whether ye be in the divine favour, and have the fruits of the 
spirit, as the evidence of your acceptance in the beloved. " Know 
ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye 
be reprobates.^" 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor 
of this world rich in faitli, and heirs of the kingdom which he 
hath promised to them that love him.^" Jam. ii. 5, By their be- 
ing rich iu faith, the apostle means the true riches Mhich our Sa- 
viour recommends. They are rich in " love, joy, peace, long-suf- 
fering, gentleness, meekness," and all the fruits of the Spirit, which 
are produced and continued in us by faith, as its effects; but they 
may be conceived distinctly, and are often distinguished from faith 



PLAN OF SALVATION. StTQ 

in the scriptures, though in these passages and a few otliers, the 
word is used in a figurative way, to include all its consequences 
as well as the thing itself. 

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence 
of things not seen." Heb. xi. 1. 

The word in this passage is used in its largest sense, and in- 
cludes the fulness of christian experience. It is not the mere act 
of believing, but the whole of that love and joyful communion with 
God, which a christian feels, that is, the substance of things hop- 
ed for. Does a christian wish to know the nature of those plea- 
sures that are at God's right hand forevermore? His present 
peace and joy in believing, is the substance thereof: that is, the 
joys of heaven are the same in substance with his present happi- 
ness in God, though far higher in degree, and have no mixture of 
temptation or inquietude. 

But is not all correct faith regulated by evidence? How then can 
faith itself be an evidence of things not seen? If it be proved to a 
man that there is a heaven of eternal happiness for the upright, 
and if he believe the report upon this evidence, will his believing 
it bring any new evidence of the fact.^ Not if the term faith be 
used according to its common meaning, to signify the mere act of 
the mind in believing; but if it be applied to the full experience of 
a christian, to include his act of believing and his immediate com- 
munion with God, as the effect of it, this is truly an evidence of 
things not seen: for God having appointed faith as the condition 
«r medium through which he manifests himself to the soul, when 
a man embraces the Lord Jesus as his God and Saviour, the love 
of God is shed abroad in his heart, which produces an immediate 
conviction or consciousness of the divine presence entirely un- 
known before. This is a new evidence or conviction of things not 
seen, produced by the influence of the Holy Ghost, in consequence 
of our believing: <'for the spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirits that we are the children of God." Rom. viii. 16. This new 
witness, or evidence of things not seen, is not the act of faith, but 
the effect of it; for it is the spirit that bears witness, and we re- 
ceive the spirit by the hearing of faith; (Gal. iii. 2.) therefore 
faith itself is not the witness, because it is faith that receives it: 
the receiver and the thing received are not surely the same thins;, 
though the term faith is sometimes used in a figurative way to 
comprehend them both. 

Having noticed the several applications of this word, we now 
meet the long contested question, is faith the gift of God? 
Answer: 



aso AN ESSAY ON THE 

1. Let us apply the question to the faith of Simon, and those 
chief rulers, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of 
God: was their faith the gift of God? If the inquiry relate to 
'Christ, the object of their faith, (for they believed on him) this sure- 
ly was the gift of God, for God gave his Son, and had this gift 
been withheld, he could never have been an object of their faith. 
If we mean the ^oirer to believe, this also was the gift of Go<l, as 
are all the intellectual and physical powers of a human being. But 
if the meaning be, were they enabled to believe by an immediate 
influence of the Holy Spirit? I think the answer must be given 
in the negative. Thousands believe in Christ with an indifterent 
speculative faith, and they have a natural power to believe in this 
manner, without any immediate influence from above. 

2. As to the faith required in the gospel, that is, faith unfeign- 
ed, which properly influences the affections and the conduct, this 
is the gift of God in all the senses above mentioned. The object^ 
the power to believe, and the spiritual influence through which we 
believe, are all the gift of God. 

3. When faith is applied to the gospel, and the system of doc- 
trines contained therein, as it often is, every christian will ac- 
knowledge that this heavenly system is the gift of God. 

4. When the word is applied to the eflfecls of faith, or the in- 
dwelling power of the Holy Spirit, which becomes a new "evidence 
of things not seen, by bearing witness with our spirits that we are 
the children of God," this is certainly the gift of God. He has 
promised to give us the Comforter to abide with us, and his word 
assures us we are to receive it by faith. 

5. Confining the query to that act or exercise of the mind in be- 
lieving, by which we are influenced to do the works of God, and 
by which we receive the in-dwelling Comforter, properly called 
gospel faith, we must say, either (1.) that it is an act of the hu- 
man mind, independent of any immediate influence from abovej 
or (2.) that it is an act of God, producing an effect upon the hu- 
man mind, without any voluntary act of that mind; or (3.) that it 
is a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunction with, or aid- 
ed by, an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. 

If we admit ike first, it will follow that man is able, of himself, 
and independent of any spiritual assistance from God, to believe 
with a faith that justifieth the ungodly, that purifieth the heart, 
and that overcometh the world. This contradicts the whole tenor 
of the gospel. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 381 

If we admit the second, it will follow that faith is no gospel du- 
ty, enjoined on man, but is as exclusively the art of God, as the 
creation of this world. If it be a duty at all, it must be the duty 
of God, for it is supposed to be the sole act of God, and we are as 
passive in receiving it, as we were in receiving our existence. — 
To say, therefore, that it is man's duty for God to act faith, is as 
ridiculous as to say it is man's duty for God to create another 
world. If any person can, w ith his eyes open, and with the bible 
before him, admit, either that faith is not a gospel duty required 
of man, as a condition of salvation; or that it ever m as enjoined 
on man, as his duty, to perform the actions of God, I feel no more 
disposition to reason with such a person, than I should to reason 
with Mr. Hume concerning the "existence of an external universe." 
I thinkthere is no possible alternative but to admit the third, that 
gospel faith is "a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunc- 
tion with, or aided by, an immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, 
embracing the truth of God, both with the understanding and the 
affections." 



SECTION IL 

Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justification. 

Genuine gospel-faith embraces different truths at different 
times, and exists in various degrees. 

"Ye believe in God," says our Saviour, "believe also in me." 
John xiv. 1. The disciples had long before this believed in him in 
some sense, that is, they had believed this truth; "Jesus Christ is 
the Messiah sent from God;" but he was now proposing another 
truth concerning himself, and exhorting them to believe it, as we 
find inverse 10,11. "The Mords that I speak unto you, I speak not of 
myself: but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else 
believe me for the very work's sake." 

1. "They believed in God." 2. "That Christ was the Messiah, 

sent from God." 3. "That he and the Father were one." 4. "That 

he died for our sins, and rose again for our jjistifieation." 5. "That 

he came to be a spiritual Saviour, manifesting the love of God to 

3 C 



382 AN ESSAY ON THE 

his people, by the in-dwelling power of the Holy Gh osV^ The 
two last articles they appear not to have believed till after our 
Lord's resurrection, as we shall have occasion to remark presently 

That there are various degrees in true faith is evident from 
many passages of scripture; a few we will notice. "I am not asham"' 
ed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salva- 
tion to every one that believeth: for therein is the righteousness of 
God revealed from faith to faith." Rom. i. 16, 17. Here the apos- 
tle informs us the gospel is intended to communicate light and 
truth to the human mind progressively; from faith to faith. One 
truth embraced opens the way for another; one act of faith pre- 
pares the mind for another; and thus we proceed regularly, jfrom 
faith to faith. 

Paul to the Thessalonians, 1 epistle, chapter iij. verse 6, says, 
"Timothens came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings 
of your faith and charity." And in verse 10, he speaks of "pray- 
ing exceedingly that we might see your faces, and might perfect 
that which is lacking in your faith." From this I infer that they 
then heartily believed according to the light they had, and yet a 
higher degree of faith was necessary, and the apostle had a strong 
desire to go and preach to them some higher truth, which they 
vvere now in a proper state to receive, that he might "perfect that 
which was lacking in their faith." In the next epistle, he 
says, "we are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, be- 
cause that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every 
one of you all towards each other aboundeth." 2 Thess. i. 3. 

By one degree of faith we are influenced to repent, or come un- 
to God: "For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and 
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb.xv.6. 
By such a faith in God's promise in Jesus Christ, as influences us 
to forsake our sins and submit to the covenant of mercy, we arc 
brought into a state of acceptance with God. For "to him give 
all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever be- 
lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts x. 48. By 
another degree of it we experience the new birth, or receive the 
spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father. For "whoso- 
ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and he 
that [thus] believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him- 
self." 1 John V. 1, 10. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh 
the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even 
our faith." Verse 4. "Little children your sins are forgiven for 
his name's sake — ^Young men—ye have overcome the wicked one. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 383 

Fathers — ye have known him that is from the beginning." i John 
ii. 12, 13. "Though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice 
with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 1 Pet. i. 8. "Purifying 
their hearts by faith." Acts xv. 9. "Sanctified by faith that is in 
me." Actsxxvi. IS. 

Those various effects are produced, not all at once, or by one 
single act of faith, but at dift'erent times, and by the successive de- 
grees orstages of taith, embracing different truths, as the state of 
the mind is suited to receive them. To conceive this subject more 
distinctly, let us weigh the following particulars. 

1. Faith is often mentioned, as though it were the sole condi- 
tion of our justification. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shaltbe saved; — All that believe are justified; — being justifi- 
ed by faith," &c. And yet repentance, confession and reformation 
are stated as essential conditions of our pardon. 

" Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out; — If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- 
give us our sins; — Let the wicked forsake his way, — and our God 
will abundantly pardon." 

In these promises of pardon faith is not mentioned; but repent- 
ance, confession and forsaking our evil way, are said to be the 
condition. How are these passages to be reconciled with those 
which speak of faith as the only condition? Answer: Faith is the 
root and ground of all these; it is by faith men are led to repent, 
confess their sins, and forsake them; for this very purpose they 
were first required to believe; and that act of the mind which so 
embraces the truth as to produce sincere repentance and submis- 
sion to God, is true gospel-faith, and may well be considered as the 
single or principal condition of our acceptance, because it is essen- 
tial to produce every thing else required. 

2. That every real penitent is in possession of a degree of genu- 
ing gospel-faith, may be thus proved: God is pleased with every 
sincere penitent, because he has commanded repentance, and to 
say he is not pleased with it, is to say he is not pleased that we 
should keep his commandments. " A broken and a contrite heart, 
O God, thou wilt not despise." Psalm li. 17. "A bruised reed shall 
he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send 
forth judgment unto victory." Matt.xii. 24. "The Lord is nigh un- 
to them that are of a broken heart." Psalm xxxiv. 18. "But to this 
man will 1 look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, 
and trembleth at my word." Isaiah Ixvi. 2. "It is thus evident 
from many particular passages in the scriptures, as well a§, from 



38* AN ESSAY ON THE 

the general account they give us of the nature of God, that he is 
pleased with sincere repentance. 

" But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that 
Cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder 
of them that diligently seek him." Heb. xi. 6. 

Therefore every true penitent has faith, as the stimulating prin- 
ciple which leads him to seek that he may find, to ask that he may 
receive, and to knock that it may be opened unto him. 

3. He that comelh to God must believe that he is: — that h« is 
God, powerful, wise, true, just Siiulgood, A serious attention to 
the evidence of this great truth, and of the sinner's want of con- 
formity to this divine nature, produces a conviction that he is 
guilty and polluted, that sin is ejcceeding sinful, or in other words, 
that he is a miserable offender, whose crimes have great demerit, 
and expose him to a just sentence of condemnation. This leads to 
godly sorrow, to self-reproaches, and to deep regret or lamentation 
for having been such an offender. 

4. He must believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligent- 
ly seek him. This faith, by all who are under the gospel dispen- 
sation, has the goodness of God in Jesus Christ for its object. — 
The serious, inquiring mind searches into the evidence of the di- 
vine mercy to sinners, and finds it all pointing to Jesus Christ, as 
the only Mediator between God and man. The gospel proclaims 
God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, I'he poor 
mourner believes God is a merciful Being; that he accepts all tru- 
ly penitent sinners, for the sake of Christ's atonement; and that 
he will thus accept him in the beloved, when he shall have fully 
surrendered to the terms of reconciliation. 

5. When a man exercises such a degree of faith in these truths, 
as produces a genuine repentance; when he has such an abhor- 
rence of sin, and such an acquiescence in God's plan of saving sin- 
ners, as leads him to submit to Christ as his prophet, priest and 
king, he is accepted in the beloved. When he fully surrenders 
himself, and consents to be saved according to the covenant of 
mercy in Jesus Christ, God is reconciled to him, because his vo- 
luntary hostility to the divine government has ceased, which is 
the only thing that hinders any sinner of Adam's race from being 
accepted, since Jesus magnified the law and made it honourable. 

6. This faith is the condition of the sinner's pardon or justifiica- 
tion. God has pledged his truth and goodness in the Redeemer, 
to accept all sinners who lay down the weapons of their rebellion, 
and sincerely submit that Christ should rule over them. It is by 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 385 

faith tliey are influenced to this, and that very exercise of the 
mind in crediting ({rod's word, which leads to true repentance, 
confession, forsaking of sin, and humble submission to Christ's 
authority, is the condition of the sinner's pardon or acceptance in 
the beloved. 

1 am aware that it has often been represented, and it accords 
perfectly with the w hole system of predestination, that all the sin- 
ner's repentance, confession, forsaking sin, and the faith which 
produced them, are to go for nothing; and that some new act of 
faith is required, as the sole condition of his justiiication. That 
in the midst of all his penitence and humble acknowledgments, 
the wrath of God is flaming against him, and will so continue till 
he shall receive faith; and this new faith which he receives, after 
his repentance, amendment, and submission, is the sole term or 
condition of his acceptance. That he has no ground to expect 
that any of his attempts to seek the Lord are any thing in God's 
account, because ''faith is the total term of all salvation," and 
this faith he has not yet received: it is held at the disposal of his 
Maker, and whether he will ever give it or not, depends upon his 
own sovereign pleasure. The penitent must lie at the footstool of 
sovereign mercy: if faith should be given, all will be well; but if 
the Sovereign should refuse to give him faith, the poor mourning 
creature must depart into hell for not receiving it. 

The sinner is supposed to receive faith, as passively as a vessel 
receives water, and at the same moment he receives pardon; this 
faith is the condition of his pardon, and yet it is the sole act of 
God, as much as the act of forgiving the sinner's transgressions! 
Then it seems God performs one act as the condition of his per- 
forming another, and this act of God is required as the duty of 
man, being the grand and sole condition, on which his salvation 
or damnation turns! I desire to know how this is to be reconciled 
with the plain word of God, which promises pardon upon our con- 
fessing OUT sins, — upon our repenting and being converted, — and 
wpon our forsaking our way and returning unto the Lord. 1 John 
i. 9. Acts iii. 19. Isa. Iv. 7. 

Is all this included in the faith we receive the moment we are 
justified.^ or is it the condition of our receiving that faith? The 
promise of pardon is given on condition of repentance, confession 
and forsaking sin; but faith is represented in other places as the 
sole condition of our acceptance; therefore there is no way to avoid 
charging the scriptures v ith contradiction, but to maintain that 
the very faith which is received as a condition of forgiveness, is 



386 AN ESSAY ON THE 

that which comprehends or produces repentance, confession and 
amendment. To say a sinner is forgiven upon another faith, dis- 
tinct from that which produces repentance, &c. is to say, either 
that he may be forgiven without repentance, or that there are other 
indispensable conditions of his receiving pardon, beside that of 
faith, and which are not necessarily connected with it. It remains 
to be proved then, that repentance, confession of sin, and forsaking 
it, are all included in that passive faith which we are supposed to 
receive at the moment of our justification, or to contradict the 
scriptures, which necessarily imply, that the faith which is re- 
ceived as the one condition of our pardon, is that which compre- 
hends all the other conditions with which the promise of pardon 
is connected. 

To say repentance can exist without faith — that it is the condi- 
tion on which we receive faith — and that God's act of impressing 
this faith upon our passive souls, is the condition of our accep- 
tance — is a confused notion that has arisen out of the system of 
predestination, and which has no countenance from the oracles of 
God. 

I grant when the term faith is used in its highest and most ex- 
tensive sense, as including the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spi- 
rit, it is properly received from God; but this blessing is received^ 
not as the condition of our pardon, but as the consequence of it. 

7. Pardon is an act of the divine will: who can forgive sins but 
God only? The act of God in pardoning or accepting a penitent 
sinner in Christ, and his giving the sinner a spiritual manifestation^ 
or full assurance of his being accepted, are distinct from each 
other, and are not necessarily inseparable. The latter cannot exist 
without the former; but the former may exist without the latter. 
That is, a man cannot know his acceptance before he is accepted, 
but he may be accepted before he has a divine assurance of it. 
Butsome appear to think that a man's consciousness or knowledge 
of his acceptance, is the \ery faith, that is required as the condi- 
tion of his acceptance: that is, that he shall be accepted, on condi- 
tion that he first know he is accepted! That God gives us a divine 
assurance of his love, not as a consequence of our believing, but 
this assuranceof the divine favour, h the very faith, on condition of 
which, "we are received into the divine favour!" These mysteries 
are truly worthy the Antinomian Babel. 

There is a passage in our Saviour's discourse to his disciples, 
most unhappily applied to prove this strange doctrine: "At that 
day ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I ia 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 387 

you." John xiv. 20. It is taken for granted without examination 
that this promise of assurance applies to the very day, and the 
very hour, when men are first accepted of God in Christ Jesus; 
whereas the context is a clear proof of the contrary. Will any man 
presume to say the disciples were following Jesus all this while 
and yet were "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniqui- 
ty?" Were they not accepted of the Father, and did he not love 
them, because they had believed that Jesus came out from God? 
And yet in this chapter their kind Redeemer is supporting their 
minds against the sorrow they felt upon the prospect of his ap- 
proaching fate, by promising them a comforter which should com© 
from the Father after his resurrection, and abide with them for- 
ever. Speaking of this event, he says, "I will not leave you com- 
fortless; I will come to you." Verse 18. That is, I will come in 
the in-dwelling power of my Holy Spirit: ("for the Holy Ghost 
was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.") It 
follows, "At that day [namely, "when the comforter is come, 
whom the Father will send in my name"] ye shall know, that I am 
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Ye shall have a con- 
scious assurance of the divine presence, that will be better thaa 
my personal presence with you. 

This promise was not fulfilled till after our Lord's resurrection* 
The day after his resurrection they still proved themselves slow 
of heart to believe the spirituality of his kingdom. They were di- 
rected to tarry at Jerusalem till they should receive power from 
on high; and after waiting sometime in faith and prayer, the Holy 
Ghost came upon them, and after this they went on their way with 
an unwavering assurance, very different from the doubtful and un- 
settled state of mind they had manifested before. 

8. This divine assurance is also received by faith. There is a 
distinction between this faith and that which brought the sinner 
to a state of acceptance, both as to the particular truth believed, 
and as to the effect of believing. In the former case the truth be- 
lieved was this: "God being a rewarder of them that diligently 
seek him," accepts all penitents who heartily repent of their sins, 
and fully submit to the Redeemer, as tlieir prophet, priest and 
king. He will pardon and accept me in the beloved, when I shall 
have fully surrendered to the terms of reconciliation. This faith 
leads to "diligent seeking, asking, humiliation, confession, stri- 
ving against sin, disclaiming personal merit, relying upon Christ," 
&c. In order to make a full surrender, and meet the gracious 
overtures of God, in his covenant of mercy through Jesus Christ. 



388 AN ESSAY ON THE 

The truth believed in the latter case is this: "God is now my 
reconciled Father, and graciously accepts me as his child, for the 
sake of the merit and atonement of my Redeemer." This faith af- 
fectionately embraces God as a Father and a friend; it relies upon 
him with a filial confidence, and "sets to our seal tnat God is true." 
in his great and precious promises; and he kindly answers, accord- 
ing to thy faith so be it unto thee; and gives us the spirit of adop- 
tion, whereby we cry abba Father. 

This is the faith by which a christian gains his victories over 
the world, the fiesh and the devil. A filial confidence in God as 
our loving Father in Jesus Christ, invigorates every faculty of 
our souls, and influences us, "by patient continuance in well do- 
ing," to "seek for glory, and honour, and immortality. Cast not 
away your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward." 
God is well pleased to see us trust in his paternal goodness; and 
for a christian to cast away his confidence in God, as his reconci- 
led Father, while conscious of a sincere desire and purpose to do 
his will to the best of his ability, is to reproach his Maker, and to 
represent him as being less willing to be reconciled with his crea- 
tures, than they are to be reconciled with him. The same may be 
said of a penitent, who with the most sincere solicitude has long 
laboured to forsake all his sins, and to submit to his merciful Re- 
deemer; but who is still writing bitter things against himself, and 
considering God as being afar off, frowning with vengeance upon 
his soul. "He abhors himself, repenting in dust and ashes;" and 
yet, being entangled in the theories of predestination, he holds it 
altogether doubtful whether the Sovereign pleasure will deign to 
regard his plaintive cries. The great God, he thinks, is very an- 
gry with him, and intends never to give him faith. All his peni- 
tence he has been taught to consider as filthiness, and his very 
breath is sin! He has no ground to indulge any confidence ij God, 
on account of his deep repentance, and his hungering after the 
blessings of the new covenent-, but must ever consider himself as 
an accursed being, unless it should please God to give him faith; 
and this is altogether uncertain, for if his present contrition and 
humility are nothing in God*s account, what likelihood is there 
that God will give faith to him any sooner than to an impenitent 
sinner.^ Is there any promise in the bible that God will give a man 
faith, in consequence of his repentance.^ Is it any where said, "Re- 
pent ye therefore, and be converted," and I will give you faith? 
Is there any promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful 
and just" to give us faith.^ What unbecoming thoughts of God 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 389 

is this poor creature taught to entertain! The Lord Jesus Christ 
has died upon the cross for his redemption; his soul is weary of 
his sins, and pants after the living God, more than for his neces- 
sary food; and yet he thinks the Almighty refuses to be reconciled! 
He ought to consider that God is love, and that he is rei!onciled 
to every soul of us the very moment we are reconciled to give up 
our sins, and submit to the government of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
His unchangeable character is pledged: the promise is given: itis 
confirmed by an oath, and sealed with "the blood of the everlast- 
ing covenant:" and yet we are to suppose, it seems, that however 
a sinner may repent, and prostrate himself at the feet of Jesus, 
God is no more reconciled with him than with any other sinner. 
"Faith is the total term of all salvation:" God has not been pleased 
to give him faith; he has never premised to give it on condition of 
repentance; and therefore this person may repent and strive during 
the whole of his probation, and still continue a poor miserable un- 
believer, because God will not give him faith. 

If it be said all those will certainly receive faith who rightly 
seek and ask for it, I must answer, (1.) I know of no passage in 
the bible which commands us to ask for faith. In one place the 
disciples prayed. Lord increase our faith, and a certain person on 
another occasion said. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief; 
but this supposes they had faith, and only prayed for help, or 
spiritual assistance, that the same faith might be increased. (2.) 
Although Christ has assured us our "heavenly Father will give 
the Holy Spirit to them that ask him," and that this Spirit will 
help our infirmities, yet I know of no promise that God will give 
faith to them that ask him. And if there be no such promise, on 
what ground is it presumed so confidently that this passive faith 
which is received in the moment of justification, will be given to 
all that seek and ask for it? (3.) We are commanded to seek and 
ask in faith, and are assured that the man who does not pray in 
faith is like a wave of the sea; and "let not that man think 
that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." James i. 6, 7. Now if 
we ask before we have faith, we certainly ask without faith, and 
therefore shall not receive any thing of the Lord; and it is very 
evident that the very faith which accompanies our seeking and 
asking is the condition of our acceptance. If men receive faith in 
the moment of their justification, in consequence of seeking and 
askingj'or it, then we say their seeking and asking are the condi* 
tion, and faith is the very blessing they receive in consequence of 
performing the condition; which plaiuly contradicts the deelara- 
3D 



390 AN ESSAY ON THE 

tion of St. James, as well as several important sayings of our Re- 
deemer. 

But it may be objected "that a man must feel thai he is pardoned 
and accepted in the beloved, before he can believe it; otherwise he 
may deceive himself and believe a falsehood." Answer: 

1. Is it not equally possible for a man to take some feeling for 
a pardon, which is only imaginary.^ and if so, is he not equally li- 
able to deceive himself and believe a falsehood, on supposition 
that he must first feel his acceptance, and then believe it, as he is 
on supposition that he must first believe in God's fatherly appro- 
bation ofhiminthe beloved, and receive the evidence or con- 
sciousness of it through the medium of this cordial embrace of his 
Heavenly Father by faith? 

2. God requires of us to believe his truth upon the evidence ex- 
hibited in the gospel, before he gives us the full evidence of con- 
scious assurance, by the in-dwelling power of his Holy Spirit. — 
The gospel proclaims that "God was in Christ reconciling the 
world unto himself;" that he "is not willing any should perish, 
but that all should come to repentance;" that the obstacle which 
hinders our acceptance, is our hostility to the divine government, 
or our obstinate refusal to be reconciled to God: of course, when 
we so believe the truth as to be brought to genuine repentance 
and submission to Christ's authority, the obstruction is removed, 
and we are accepted of God through the Redeemer. We are 
then to believe that we are accepted, and that the Almighty loves 
us freely, for the sake of Christ's atonement, because we heartily 
repent of our sins and consent to be reconciled to God. To sup- 
pose God is not reconciled to a man, when that man sincerely re- 
pents, confesses his sins, and is reconciled to the covenant of 
grace, is to contradict the gospel, and to suppose that there is still 
some other obstacle in the way,beside the sinner's voluntary hostility. 
It is te suppose that some private obstruction exists in the mind of 
God; and therefore though the sinner exercises all the faith, repen- 
tance and submission in his power, yet the Almighty will not be 
reconciled on this account, but enjoins some other act of faith as 
the sole condition of his accepting the sinner, which he reserves 
in his own sovereign power, to give when he pleases, and which 
the sinner must passively receive. This notion accords very well 
with the divine sovereignty, partiality and arbitrary will, attribu- 
ted^ to God in some human creeds; but it will never agree with 
the moral attributes proclaimed in the gospel; and I fear hundreds 
of rpourning penitents have been led by it to entertain very unbe- 



PLx\N OF SALVATION. S9i 

coming thoughts of God, and have heen miserably entangled in 
these remains of the gloomy system of reprobation. 

3. As to the danger of a man's deceiving himself, I cannot help 
thinking the charge justly falls upon the passive faith of the An- 
tinomian. For if "faith is the total term of all salvation," and if 
this faith is received in the moment of justification, is it not an ea- 
sy matter for a man, whose soul was never thoroughly humbled by 
repentance, but who has felt some desire to be converted, to take 
a sudden impulse or feeling for this gift of faith, and then to take 
for granted that he is in a stale of justification? He is delivered 
at once, and by a very short process, from the trouble of repen- 
tance; and having never surrendered to the yoke of Christ, his ap- 
petites and passions retain the ascendency; but notwithstanding 
his loose morals, he can remember when he received faith, and 
therefore he glories in his full justification. 

4?. If it be said that a man upon this ground may believe him- 
self into a state of acceptance when he pleases, seeing he has 
nothing to do but to believe God is reconciled with him, the an- 
swer is easy. First, any man who believes he is in the divine fa- 
vour before a gospel -faith has led him to genuine repentance, be- 
lieves a falsehood; and the difference is nothing, whether he be- 
lieve this falsehood, upon the bare supposition that he had a 
right to believe it, or upon some imaginary or passionate feeling 
which he took for the gift of faith and justification. Secondly, 
when a man has truly repented and become reconciled to God, he 
is accepted, and has a right to claim the promise, or to believe 
in his Father's love, when he pleases. It is now a truth that he 
is in favour with God, and I hope a man has a right to believe the 
truth at any time. Thirdly, when a man believes he is accepted, 
before he is so, there will be no corresponding influence of the 
Spirit on his mind, bearing witness to the justness and truth of 
his claim, because God will never bear witness to a lie. Fourthly, 
if a man should fondly imagine he has such a corresponding wit- 
ness, when it is not so in reality, the word of God gives very 
clear rules by which he is to examine himself whether he be in the 
faith. And the man who thinks he can point to the place and time 
when faith was given him from heaven, is equally bound to exam- 
ine himself by the same standard: for he too may be deceived. 
AVhat then are the rules by which our faith is to be tried, and 
proved to be genuine? Will one say "I know the time and place 
when the Almighty gave me faith, and pardoned all my sins?" 
Another may as truly say, "I know not when the Almigty for- 



39^ AN ESSAY ON THE 

gare my sins; but I remember the time and place, when my spirit 
first believed God was my reconciled Father, and upon which 
"The Spirit of God did bear witness with my spirit that I was a 
child of God," Another may say, "I know not when my sins were 
forgiven, or when I first received the clear evidence of it: but I 
now have a clear evidence that I am accepted in the beloved." 

Without wasting time in contending which of these experiences 
is the best, I must contend upon the authority of God's word, that 
they are all to be tried by the same standard. And there is no rule 
in that standard which says, "the criterion by which your experi- 
ence must be proved sound and genuine, is, that you be able to tell 
the place and time when you received faith, or when you were 
justified." 1 never found such a rule as this in the bible, though I 
bave learned it from other sources. It has sometimes been insinuate 
ed or declared, that if a man cannot tell the very time when he re- 
ceived faith and was justified, he is yet in the way to hell. Per- 
sons of this opinion, in all likelihood, repose great confidence 
in this criterion, and glory in being able to tell the place and time 
when God gave them faith; "but God forbid that I should glory," 
says the apostle, "save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom the world is crucified, unto me, and I unto the world." Gal. 
vi. 14?. "Does not talking about a justified or sanctified state tend to 
mislead men.^" says Mr. Wesley: "Does it not naturally lead them 
to trust in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every 
moment pleasing or displeasing to God according to our works: 
according lo the whole of our present inward tempers and out- 
ward behaviour." 

The apostle John, in his first epistle, fifth chapter, lays down 
the rules by \yhich we are to examine ourselves whether we be in 
the [christian] faith. 1. "Faith worketh by love. Whosoever be- 
lieveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that 
loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of 
him." 1 John y. 1. Let us examine whether we have the "genu- 
ine mark of love," or whether our faith worketh by bigotry and 
malice. Let us not presume that we love God, while we indulge 
angry and malevolent afi'ections against his creatures. 

2, ^'This faith, working by love, leads to gospel obedience^ 
For this is is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; 
and his commandments are not grievous." Verse 3. The Apostle 
James urges this criterion against the Antinomians of his time; 
f<Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils 
also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that 
faith without works is dead?" James ii. 19, 20. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 398 

3. The faitb of a christian produces victory. <«For whatsoever 
is born of God overcometh the world: and ihis is the victory that 
overcometh the v>orld, even our faith. Who is he that overcom- 
eth the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
God?" Verse 4, 5. 

4. He that believeth with this loving, working.and victorious faith, 
hath the witness of the Holy Spirit. For *'he that believeth on the 
Son of God hath the witness in himself." Verse 10. 

These are the criterions God has directed us to use, when we 
examine ourselves whether we be in the faith; and any man whose 
faith will bear this test, is a genuine christian, loved and approv- 
ed of God, whatever might have been the particular mode of his 
conversion. 

He whose faith worketh by a flaming, fiery zeal, or bigoted fu- 
ry; he who is destitute of the meekness and gentleness of Christ; 
and who is not only loose and irregular in his moral conduct, but 
proud, selfish, and resentful in his disposition, is no genuine chris- 
tian, however he may profess to have the witness in himself, and 
be able to tell the day when he received faith and justification. 
God directs us to judge of our state, not by one of those rules alone, 
but by the whole of them in conjunction; and in vain may we pre- 
sume to separate "the witness of the spirit, from the fruits of right- 
eousness which are by faith of Jesus Christ." 



SECTION m. 

Whether faith depends upon the will. 

Is not belief an involuntary act necessarily following the degree 
of evidence perceived.^ And has a man power to believe when he 
pleases.^ 

To answer the first question we may observe: 

1. In all cases where the evidence is irresistible, the belief or 
decision of the judgment is involuntary, and follows of necessity, 
when the evidence is fully before the mind. That I now exist, and 
am now thinking and writing, I believe of necessity, because the 
evidence is irresistible: it is impossible for me to believe the con- 
trary. When a man feels acute pain, his feeling or consciousness 



394 AN ESSAY ON THE 

is irresistible, and it is impossible for him to believe that he feels 
DO pain, when he is conscious that he does. The same may be 
said of many other truths. But, 

a. To say ail belief is involuntary, is to say all evidence is 
alike irresistible, and of course that all we hear or read concern- 
ing the comparative degrees of evidence, is founded in absurditv; 
for it is surely absurd to talk of there being degrees in absolute 
necessity. The same may be said concerning the degrees of be- 
lieving: if all my belief is absolutely necessary, no one act of belief 
can be stronger or more firm than another, unless it be possible 
for something to be more firm than necessity. All men of reflection 
will acknowledge, for example, that we have probable evidence to 
believe the other planets are inhabited by living creatures^ but 
will any one say he is under the same necessity to believe there 
are living creatures in the moon or the planet Jupiter^ that he is 
under to believe there are living creatures upon this earth? 

3. Mr. Hume's maxim is acknowledged to be true, by Deists, 
Christians, Turks and Jews: "A wise man will proportion his be- 
lief to the evidence." But this surely supposes belief to be in our 
power: for if all evidence produces belief of necessity, it is impossi- 
ble for any man not to proportion his belief to the evidence; and in 
this respect there can be no distinction between a wise man and a 
fool: all are equally wise, all equally conform their belief to the 
evidence, and that of necessity. 

4. If belief be not in our power, and can in no case depend up- 
on our will, all complaints of deists and philosophers concerning 
the credulity of mankind, and their proneness to be too dogmatical 
in their belief, is truly ridiculous: for why complain if they al- 
ways proportion their belief to the evidence, which the objection 
supposes they must do of necessity.^^ 

5. All our complaints against the incredulity or unbelief of in- 
fidels are equally absurd, for the same reason. They do not be- 
lieve in Christianity; but the objection says they believe every 
thing for which they have evidence, and cannot do otherwise; 
therefore the reason why they believe not, is that they never had 
any evidence: consequently, if my objector blame them for their 
unbelief, he wishes them to believe without evidence, and at the 
same time, maintains that it is impossible! 

6. If ail belief is necessarily produced according to the evi- 
dence, then it is impossible for a man either to resist evidence, or 
to believe without evidence. Consequently, no man in the world 
ever deceived himself, or believed a falsehood, otherwise you say 
a man is led into a falsehood by believing according to evidence. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 395 

If so, evidence not on]y impels belief, but also supports delusion; 
and therefore truth and falsehood are both supported alike, and no 
man ever believed a falsehood, without being led into it by such a 
force of evidence as was perfectly irresistible. 

7. Every man of good character, who gives his testimony eon- 
cerning matters of fact, claims a right to be believed: if his neigh- 
bours and children refuse to credit any thing he says, and to be- 
lieve he is a liar, he feels himself injured, and blames them for 
discrediting his testimony. But according to the hypothesis here 
opposed, he ought not to blame them at all; because if this theo- 
ry be true, the reason why they discredit his word is, that they 
have irresistible evidence to believe him a liar. 

8. When our Lord first appeared to his disciples after his re- 
surrection, Thomas was not among them; "The other disciples 
therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord. Thomas knew 
their character, and could not deny that their united testimony 
was a just ground of belief: yet it seems he had resolved not to be- 
lieve upon any other kind or degree of evidence than that of sight 
and feeling. "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the 
nails, and put my fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust my 
hand into his side, I will not believe." John xx. 25. Was not 
Thomas here conscious that it depended upon his will, whether 
he would believe upon this evidence, or withhold assent till he 
should obtain greater? That he might have believed when he re- 
fused to do so, and that it would have been truly virtuous foif him 
to have given credit to the testimony of his brethren, without in- 
dulging such obstinate scepticism, is evident from eur Lord's reply: 
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou 
hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have 
believed." Verse 29. 

9. Lastly, We may appeal to the consciousness of every living 
man, if the act of believing be not often as voluntary as any other 
action of his soul. He can examine evidence, or refuse to exa- 
mine it. He can resist his prejudices and passions, or he can sub- 
mil to them. He can yield to the influence of imagination, or he 
can oppose its influence. And it is in a great degree, at his 
option, whether his opinions be formed according to the model of 
some favourite leader, the creed of his party, or by a patient and 
candid examination of evidence. 

The objection supposes that there is no such thing as prejudice, 
obstinacy, or a disposition to reject evidence, in the world. Or at 
least, if there be such things, they can have no eft'ect; for however 



a9« AN ESSAY ON THE 

bigoted and obstinate a man may be, whenever he hears a good 
argument advanced by his adversary, he is supposed to yield to its 
evidence as necessarily as matter gravitates lo the centre. 

This notion of faith is supported by deists, as well as by predes- 
tinarian divines. Palmer advances it in his "Principles of Na- 
ture," page 62. "Faith," says he, "is the assent of the mind to 
the truth of a proposition supported by evid'^nee. If the evidence 
adduced is sufficient to convince the mind, credence is the necessa- 
ry result — if the evidence be insufficient, belief becomes impossi- 
ble. In religion, therefore, or in any other of the concerns of life, 
if the mind discerns that quantum of evidence necessary to estab- 
lish the truth of any proposition, it will yield to the force and effect 
of the proofs which are produced; if, on the other hand, the intel- 
ligence of man does not discern the necessary influence of such 
evidence, infidelity will be the natural and unavoidable result. — 
Why then is the principle of faith considered as a virtue? When 
therefore, the christian religion represents faith as being merito- 
rious, it betrays an ignorance of nature, and becomes censurable 
by its deviation from the primary and essential arrangements. Yet 
in this holy book, we are told, that "he that believeth not, shall 
be damned." 

Strange, that Mr. Palmer, after advancing this sentiment, whick 
he appears to believe with great assurance, should complain so 
much of the credulous vulgar, who tamely give up their reason, 
and believe wliatever priests are pleased to propose to their cre- 
dence. He cannot complain of any of us, for believing in the 
christian religion; for he says, "if the evidence adduced insuffi- 
cient to convince the mirid, credence is the necessary result — if the 
evidence be insufficient, belief becomes impossible." Therefore 
the reason we believe the truth of Christianity is, that "the evi- 
dence adduced is sufficient;" for had it been "insufficient," belief 
would have been "impossible." And why complain of priests for 
deceitfully taking advantage of the prejudices and passions of the 
people, if "belief becomes impossible" upon any ground but that 
of "sufficient evideuce.f*" If this be so, the only reason why priests 
or philosophers, atheists or fanatics, have been believed in the 
contradictory opinions they have advanced, is, that they all "ad- 
duced sufficient evidence," and therefore, "credence was the ne- 
cessary result;" for had it been otherwise, "belief" would have 
"become impossible." Thus, Mr. Palmer, to excuse his own un- 
belief, excuses all fanatics, hypocrites and bigots in the world, and 
maintains that they regulate their belief by evidence, as uniformly 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 3ftr 

as the most candid person in existence. And yet he says in 
another place, "if you can once persuade a man, that he is total- 
ly ignorant of the subject on which you are about to discourse, you 
can make him believe any thing." Page 27. 

The truth is, as universal experience shows, that the imagina- 
tion, the passions and prejudices of men, when yielded to, have an 
influence upon belief; and it is in a considerable degree optional 
with every man, whether his faith shall be regulated by evidence, 
er by some other standard. 

As to the second question, can a man believe when he pleases.'* 
it,ueeds but a short answer: 

First, It will be readily granted, I suppose, that a man, while 
awake, and in his right mind, is able to believe some truths, or er- 
ercise his mind in some acts of believingj when he pleases. 

Secondly, As to genuine gospel-faith, which produces true re- 
pentance and submission to God, a man is dependant on the divine 
inflaenee, which enlightens the eyes of his understanding, but 
which is not irresistible, and does not destroy his agency. If 
there be any time in which he cannot exercise this faith, in any 
degree, the fault is in himself, and not in God. He may have! 
grieved the Holy Spirit of God, and incapacitated himself to ex- 
ercise any lively or influential act of faith for the present; but ex- 
cepting such particular cases, I presume he may exercise some 
degree of faith at any time. If it w ere asked, can a man exercise 
his reason when he pleases.'* I think the proper answer would be 
that in general he can; but he may incapacitate himself by drunk- 
enness, or otherwise, and for the time being, may not have it in his 
power to think or act like a reasonable creature. So a man may 
injure his faculties, grieve the spirit, and for the time being, feel 
himself unable to get forward in the ways of God; but in general, 
a sincere soul may believe in some degree, or use the means of 
faith, when he pleases. 

The word of God assures us that faith cometli by hearing; and 
I hope it will be admitted that aman may hear or read the word, by 
which faith cometh, when he pleases. A man may thi7ik when he 
pleases; and though he may feel it impossible for him now to rise, 
as it were, to the third heaven, and commune with God, yet he can 
meditate a little upon the suiaTerings of Jesus on Mount Calvary, 
and upon the end for which he died and rose again from the dead. 
These serious reflections will peradventure have a greater ten- 
dency to enkindle the spark of faith within him, than some of his 
most painful struggles to bring Christ down from above. 
3E 



398 AN ESSAY ON THE 

Thirdly, Whether a man can believe that he is accepted of 
God, through Christ, when he pleases, or not, it is very evident 
the man who believes it before he has truly repented, whether 
upon the ground of some feeling which he took for justification, or 
otherwise, believes et falsehood. If this be the faith alluded to in 
the inquiry, the answer is, that no man can, at any time, believe 
it as a truth, who has not fully surrendered to Christ; and if he 
should believe it when it is not true, this surely is not gospel-faith. 

But he who has so repented as to become reconciled to God, is 
accepted in the beloved, and God is reconciled to him. He new 
has a right to believe it, at any time, because every man has a 
right to believe the truth; and I apprehend nothing hinders him 
from having the power also, except it be some voluntary declension 
in heart, or some Antinomian delusion. But hundreds, it may be 
said, know by eorperience that a man cannot believe when he 
pleases; for they have often laboured to believe, and found it as 
impossible as for them to make a world; and afterwards, when 
they w ere not thus striving, faith was given them at a time alto- 
gether unexpected. Answer: 

What were they labouring to believe.'^ Were they striving to 
embrace that truth which it was then their duty to believe.^ And 
did they labour to do their duty, and at the same time find it im- 
possible for them to do it.^ Then it seems a man's duty is, to do 
that which is impossible. Faith cometh by hearing. Did they la- 
bour to hear the word of God, and find it impossible? Did they 
labour to hear with attention, candor, self-examination, humility 
and earnest prayer.^ And is it true, that all these things were com- 
pletely out of their power? Were they striving to meditate upon 
the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, to understand the di- 
vine nature, to treasure up the gospel promises in their memory, 
to weaken their attachments to the world, and to exercise their 
thoughts on heavenly things? And was it absolutely impossible 
for them to do any of these things? If it was not, let it be remem- 
bered that in doing them, they were attending to the very matters 
which the word of God enjoins as conditions of our acceptance; 
faith is the ground of all these exertions, and when it is brought 
into this proper exercise, according to the power we have, more 
faith (or power to believe) will come through these means, seeing 
" faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 

If the man was then exercising his faith in the very way the 
word of God directs, how can it be said with truth that he labour- 
ed to believe and found it impossible? 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 399 

But I suppose the meaning of the objection is, that he tried 
to believe himself into a state of unutterable joij, like that of Paul, 
when he was carried up into the third heaven; and that he found 
this to be impossible. And because the penitent cannot rise to the 
state of a father in Christ in a moment, it is concluded that he 
has no power to believe: as if nothing was to be called /aif/i, but 
the full assurance of our spiritual union with God, produced by 
the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spirit. 

We will suppose a little child is just now beginning to walk, 
and that a person asks the question, can this child become a man 
when he pleases? Is he able to become a man at any time? The 
obvious answer is, that it is impossible. Then, says he, you have 
granted all I contend for; namely, that the child can do nothing, 
but must passively wait till it shall please God to give it man- 
hood. 

This is a very sophistical conclusion, because, though a child 
cannot become a man when he pleases, yet he can use that exercise 
and those means, which are within his power, and which naturally 
tend to manhood. In like manner a penitent has power to exercise 
faith in some degree; and one degree, or act of believing, will 
make way for another. For him to neglect that exercise which is 
within his power, and vainly attempt to become an established be- 
liever in a moment, without taking all the intervening steps, is like 
a man standing at the foot of a ladder, labouring to reach the mid- 
dle or the top of it at one step. Can this man ascend to the top of 
the ladder in a moment? It is impossible. And while he labours 
to do so, he is like a man beating the air, and will continue on the 
ground, till he shall learn to take the intervening steps, and thus 
regularly progress from one stage to another. 

How many mourning souls have thought they had the indubitable 
proof of experience that they could do nothing, when the fact was, 
they were neglecting the truths within their reach, to grasp at (ho 
fulness of christian salvation, without taking the proper steps to at- 
tain it? The penitent, after labouringhard to receive faith, or to bring 
Christ down from above, sits down discouraged, and concludes he 
can do nothing. But has not his faith already influenced him to 
"humble himself under the mighty hand of God?" Has it not led 
him to forsake his evil way, to confess his sins, repent of them, and 
submit that "the man Christ Jesus should reign over him?" And 
is all this doing nothing? As sure as the word of our God shall 
stand forever, it is doing the very things which are enjoined as the 
terms of our acceptance or justification. 



400 AN ESSAY ON THE 

But "we have received it as a maxim," says Mr. Wesley, "that 
a man is to do nothing in order to justification. Nothing can be 
more :^ilse; for he that comes to God must ^cease to do evil, and 
learn to do well;' he that repents must *do works meet for repen- 
tance:' And if this is not in order to lind favour, what does he do 
them for?" God commands him to do them, and that in order to 
iiiid^favour, promising in the most solemn manner, that all who re- 
pent and confess their sins shall find mercy. 

And has not the mourner power to examine himself, to know 
li^hether he has made a full surrender? Has he not power to search 
the scriptures, to know what are the gospel terms of reconciliation? 
Has he not power to meditate upon the evidence God has given 
of his Jove to man? and is not attention to evidence the thing which 
produces faith? Is he wishing to believe without evidence? Or does 
he expect God requires him to found his faith on some new evi- 
dence not yet given, instead of requiring him to pay proper atten- 
tion to the evidence he has? -'It is accepted according to that a maH 
hath, not according to that he hath not." 

By self-examination, by comparing the present state of his mind, 
of which he is conscious, with the marks and fruits meet for re- 
pentance, which he will find stated in the scriptures; and by a 
careful attention to the divine influence on his mind, a penitent 
may have sufficient evidence of the reality of his surrender to the 
covenant of grace. Upon this evidence, together with that con- 
tained in the 2)romises in general, he has a right to claim God as 
his gracious Father, reconciled to him through the blood of the 
everlasting covenant. He has no right to expect any higher evi> 
dence, while he refuses to pay proper attention to this: and for a 
penitent to refuse to believe in his Father's present reconciling 
love, until he shall be compelled to do it, by an overpowering reve- 
lation from heaven, is to act like Thomas, who declared "except 
I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand 
into his side, I will not believe." God may condescend to the weak- 
ness of some, as he did to the weakness of Thomas; and may give 
them an extraordinary manifestation to help their unbelief; but as 
Jesus said "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have be- 
lieved;" so 1 am persuaded God is well pleased to, see a sincere 
penitent believe in his Fatherly goodness, upon the general evi- 
dence of the gospel, without waiting to "see the heavens opened, 
and the Son of man standing on the right of God." Such a sincere 
.soul, whose faith thus glorifies God, by crediting the record he 
has given of his Son, without resolving (like Paine) to disbelieve 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 401 

the evidence contained in the gospel, till a new revelation shall be 
given to coniirm the truth of the old; shall be rewarded with a 
peaceful answer, and shall know by happy experience, that "bless- 
ed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." 

A man of an honest mind, who thus believes he is accepted in 
the beloved, will be careful to examine the fruits of his faith, to 
know whether it will bear the gospel test. Does it work by love? 
Does he find that every successive act of this faith draws him into 
closer communion with God? Does it increase his hatred of sin, 
and his pleasure in the practice of justice, mercy and truth? Does 
it lead him to set his affection on things above, not on things on 
the earth? and to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus 
Christ?" By these marks and evidences he may be settled in a 
sure trust and confidence, that he is a child of God by faith in 
Jesus Christ; and no soul that thus conforms himself to the truth 
of the gospel, will ever be deceived. 

As to the argument founded on experience, that many have re- 
ceived faith like lightening from heaven, when they were not 
looking for it; we may observe, 

1. Great allowance is to be made for those who have been en- 
tangled in the theories of Antinomianism. They have laboured 
hard to bring Christ down from above, and God condescended at 
length to their weakness and ignorance of the way of rigteousness, 
and helped them out of the slough of despond, by an extraordina- 
ry display of his enlightening and drawing power: upon this they 
helieved, and went on their way rejoicing. "Thomas, because thou 
hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, 
and yet have believed." 

2. The reason why they laboured so hard to believe and could 
not, may have been, that they thought faith was away up in hea- 
ven, and were labouring to bring it down: but finding their labour 
vain, they gave over the struggle, and to their astonishment, in a 
very little while after, they were unexpectedly relieved, and ena- 
bled to rejoice in hope oftheglory of God. Upon this tbey conclude, 
that while they sought for faith they could not find it: but after 
they gave over seeking, faith was given them from above. But 
the truth of the case may be, that after they gave over the fruit- 
less labour to bring Christ down from above, which was an exer- 
cise of unbelief, they found the word was nigh them, and believed it, 
upon which their Redeemer answered, "according to thy fiiilh so 
he it unto thee." 



402 AN ESSAY ON THE 

3. An appeal to experience, in support of aHy doctrine, is not to 
be received unless it accord with the oracles of God. This appeal 
was made in Mr. Wesley's time: "God does in fact justify those 
who by their own confession neither feared him, nor wrought 
righteousness." That is, as I understand it, that faith was unex- 
pectedly given, before they repented, or did works meet for repen- 
tance. This contradicts the scripture, and such an Antinomian 
faith and justification, ought to be examined with a jealous eye. 
Such a person may glory in his conversion being very instantane- 
ous, and that faith was given in a wonderful manner; but what is 
his faith now? Do we not need as strong faith now as in the hour 
«f our justification? 



SECTION IV. 

Of the right exercise of the understanding. 

The excellency of faith consists in its subserviency to theprac* 
tice of piety, or evangelical righteousness. Gospel-faith being a 
vigorous principle of action worketh by love; and God's believing 
people are "a peculiar people, zealous of good works." 

By good works, in the gospel sense of the phrase, is to be un- 
iderstood "the whole of our inward tempers and outward beha- 
viour regulated by grace." The term implies the right exercise of 
all our faculties, intellectual, moral and corporeal. It includes the 
proper regulation and government of our affections, passions and 
appetites; the right ordering of our thoughts and conversation; the 
dedication of our property to the cause of piety and benevolence; 
and the temperate use of all worldly enjoyments. 

As we come now to consider the practical part of religion, to 
which all other parts ought to be made subservient, and without 
which they will avail nothing to our salvation; let us first consi- 
der the right exercise of the understanding, as the foremost of all 
christian duties. This comes now in order, because as the prac- 
tice of our duty cannot go before our knowledge of it, the right 
conduct of the understanding is the first of all moral obligations. 
We might as well suppose a man can become an accomplished ar- 
iist without using his eyes, as to suppose he can become a perfect 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 4(J3 

ehristian, in the habitual neglect of his reflecting powers. How 
could we more effectually degrade the important and dignified re- 
ligion of our heavenly Redeemer, than by presuming to expect we 
shall become proficients in it, without diligent and habitual think- 
ing? Who can rightly appreciate the infinite advantages of revela- 
tion, or consequently return suitable and becoming gratitude to its 
eternal Author, without labouring to become acquainted with its 
essential principles? And who can become properly acquainted 
with them, without the uniform attention of his mind, and the vi- 
gilant exercise of his understanding? 

It is true, the doctrines of the gospel, especially the practical 
parts of it, are very plain, and adapted to the weakest capacity; 
but they are made plain, not to afford any apology for indolence, 
but for the encouragement of the diligent soul, who by the prac- 
tice of regular and serious thinking, shall acquire a sufficient 
knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, the 
weakness of his natural capacity notwithstanding. 

The first operation necessary to the enlargement of knowledge, 
is that of attention. By this is meant that act of the soul by which 
its roving thoughts are arrested in their desultory progress, and by 
which the thinking power is confined to a single object, in order 
to acquire a more adequate knowledge of its nature and proper- 
ties. This cannot be done without a voluntary exertion, of which 
we are conscious; this exertion, for the mo-it part, is laborious; and 
men in general have such an aversion to labour, that they choos© 
rather to let their thoughts run on in their irregular course, as ima- 
gination or passion shall dictate, than to confine them to any 
useful subject: hence thousands spend the whole course of their 
lives with very little regular thinking. And hence also they re- 
mainso strangely indifferent to their eternal welfare. The law has 
no terrors, the gospel no charms, for them. The great motives de- 
rived from eternity, from heaven and from hell, are no motives to 
them. And why? Because they will not think. The clear and in- 
contestible arguments, which evince their deep obligations of gra- 
titude and devotion to the great God of heaven, produce no convic- 
tion, or none that is effectual, in their ignorant and thoughtless 
minds. The heavens and the earth alike expostulate in vain; pa- 
thetic intreaties, and terrific warnings, are alike unavailing; reason 
and revelation alike disregarded; and even the moving influences 
of the Holy Spirit are resisted and despised. And whence is it 
that nothing in heaven, earth, or hell, can move tliese hardened 
and indifferent creatures to repentance? They will not think. 



40* AN ESSAY ON THE 

"The ox knovvetL his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but 
Israel doth not know: my people do not consic?er." 

The irregularity, lukewarmness, and instability of professing 
christians, may often be traced to tlie same source. They halt be- 
tween religion and the world, and vainly attempt to serve two 
masters. In the day of prosperity, they receive the word with joy; 
but when calamity and trials approach, immediately they are of- 
fended or discouraged, and are not willing to retain religion at so 
high a price. One while they seem transported with desire and 
resolution to take the kingdom by violence; but suddenly we see 
the form of their visage changed, their souls move heavily like 
Pharaoh's chariot wheels, and they are at the point of giving up 
their religion till a more convenient season. How is all this to be 
accounted for.^ Such persons undervalue things heavenly and di- 
vine, and overvalue things temporal and momentary: hence worldly 
things, to such minds, furnish very strong, and heavenly things 
very feeble motives, to influence their actions. The reason is, that 
they are ignorant of the value of heavenly things, and of the vani- 
ty of earthly things. And why are they thus ignorant.^ Because 
they will not think. 

They have taken for granted, and perhaps have often heard it 
hinted from the pulpet, that religion prospers most among ignor- 
ant and uniformed people; that all attempts to improve our know- 
ledge are dangerous, and only lead to a head-religion; that a studi-, 
ous habit naturally makes a man speculative^ philosophical^ and 
then deistical: and consequently that there is no necessity of much 
reading or thinking; but if a person can pray, and talk about reli- 
gion, a.nd feel well, it is altogether sufficient. ["These ought ye to 
have done, and not to leave the other undone."] Such persons of 
course make /^eZin»" the standard of religion. Being ignorant of 
the duties arising from their various relations in life, there is of- 
ten a deficiency in their moral conduct; and they dishonour the 
cause of their Redeemer by frequent irregularities, which will be 
noticed by others, though the immorality of them is unobserved by 
themselves, through a most culpable inattention and inexcusable 
want of thought. Hence their conscience does not condemn them, 
and the singing of a lively tune will excite their passionate feel- 
ings into transports as before; but tliey ought to consider, that ig- 
norance affords no apology, when that ignorance arises from a 
voluntary neglect of the proper means of knowledge; and that a 
sacred regard to duty, is of far higher price in the sight of God, 
\hcin any feelings that can be made to accord with deficiency in 
moral conduct. 



PLAN OF SALVATIOlSr. 40ff 

That pernicious prejudice against intellectual improvement, 
which is too often cherished, is more dangerous in its tendency 
than thousands are aware of. I fear it leads many to glory in their 
ignorance, and to look with suspicion or animosity upon every at- 
tempt to improve the mind, and to enlarge our knowledge of God 
and of his works. Confining the attention entirely to feeling, al- 
most to the total neglect of the judgment, tends to produce a 
blind and fiery zeal, that is not according to knowle Ige. Let the 
passions operate independent of the judgment in religious matters, 
and they will be equally ungovernable in the common affairs of 
life. Other excitements will move upon them as well as devotional 
exercises, and the person who is at no pains to regulate his religi- 
ous affections by the calm dictates of an enlightened understanding, 
will be apt to manifest a quickness of feeling under the powerful 
excitements this world aftords, as well as in religious affairs. 

Pious reader, mistake me not: I am far from being an advo- 
cate for that stoical formality, that inexcusable and frozen dulness, 
which prevails in too many professors; but I wish to guard against 
the common absurdity of running into one extreme, under the plau- 
sible pretence of avoiding another. The speculative and unfeel* 
ingformalist ought indeed to be reproved; but it is equally necessa- 
ry to guard against the direful influence of a blind and ranting 
«nthusiasm. 

I fear that many upright and pious souls are much injured by this 
delusion. Conceiving that sensible impressions ahane constitute the 
whole of religion, their confidence and propects rise and fall with 
their feelings. After having access to the throne of grace, in 
which the divine manifestations were abundant, they rejoice great- 
ly, and consider themselves almost on the verge of the promised 
land; but afterwards "for a season (if need be) they are in heavi- 
ness through manifold temptations," and hastily conclude their 
religion is all gone. And indeed their conclusion is very just, if it 
be true that religion consists entirely in happy feelings; but if it 
oonsist in the esteem and integrity of the mind. — in thejijced pur- 
poses And upright motives of the soul, — as well as in the feelings of 
the heart, then surely the good man has no grounds for desponden- 
cy, merely because his feelings are not lively, while conscious of 
a firm adherence to God, a sacred regard to righteous principles, 
and a perpetual detestation of moral evil. 

But alas! many spend hours of fruitless lamentation, which 
carries unbelief in its bosom, and borders upon murmuring against 
^od, because they are not blest with uninterrupted ecstacy. Their 
3 F 



406 AN ESSAY ON THE 

feelings are dull, and because they cannot obtain a sensible bless- 
ing immediately, which shall rouse their affections into lively 
exercise, they are ready to give up all for lost. I shall never for- 
get the case of a pious woman on her dying bed, that came under 
my own observation; lingering under the pressure of a painful 
disorder, she could not exercise her ailections in that vigorous and 
lively devotion, which had been common in seasons of health: in 
consequence of this she abandoned herself to sueh despondency and 
lamentation as grieved the hearts of herfamilyandreligious friends: 
after suffering in this disconsolate state of mind for a considera- 
ble time, she related her thoughts and distreising exercises of mind 
to myself and others, and seemed deeply interested for her ever- 
lasting welfare: she stated that her trust was in God; that her 
soul was resigned to his will; that she loved the ways of holiness, 
and hated sin as much as ever; but was doubtfnl and dejected, 
merely for want of lively feelings: upon this it was argued by one 
present, that sore affliction had a natural tendency to depress the 
spirit; — that religion did not consist merely in feelingt;->-that God 
would never cast off his people, for being pressed down with bodi- 
ly pain; — and that while the mind adhered to God in principle, was 
firm and upright in its intentions, and resigned to the divine au- 
thority without a murmur; this was more acceptable to God than 
the most passionate ecstacies, where such good principles were 
wanting. 

This conversation had the desired effect; and being thus in- 
structed in the ways of the Lord more perfectly, her dejection van- 
ished, and in a few days afterwards she calmly resigned her spirit 
into the hands of God, in full confidence of his everlasting com- 
placency. 

Whence arose her unnecessary grief? From the mistaken notion 
here opposed, namely, that the exercise and improvement of the 
understanding has little or nothing to do with religion; but that it 
consists entirely in the feelings of the heart. This fatal error leads 
persons to nourish their ignorance, and to make a merit of it; and 
they not only neglect the improvement of their own minds, but 
discourage and despise all attempts to acquire and communicate 
knowledge above their own standard. I want none of your specula- 
tive knowledge and improvements of the head, say they; give me 
the religion of the heart. As if the head or the understanding was 
Bot the gift of God, as well as the heart or affections! Will God 
be pleased with those warm devotees, for charging him with the 
absurdity of giving his creatures an understanding for nothing? 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 4or 

"AVill he thank that servant for saying, Lord, I knew thee to be an 
inconsistent master, who gave me an improvable understanding on 
purpose that I might i>egleet the improvement of it; therefore af- 
ter strenuously opposing all carnal reasoners and metaphysicians, I 
have buried the talent of judgment in a napkin, and have devoted 
my whole attention to the feelings of the heart: *'here take that 
i^ thine own." 

Another duty belonging to the right exercise of the understand- 
ing, is that of reasoning. This, as I have attempted to explain it, 
signifies the progress of the mind from one truth to another, by 
comparison and consequential inference. It may perhaps be 
thought strange that I should place this among the duties of the 
gospel, which has been considered altogether carnal, and there- 
fore unfit for the spiritual warfare. And indeed, if we may judge 
from what has been sometimes suggested by certain divines, it 
would seem that reasoning is so far from being a moral duty, that 
it is extremely doubtful whether it ought to be tolerated. Those 
metaphysical souls, it may be said, who make such a mighty stir 
about their consequences and rational conclusions, are so far from 
discharging a religious duty, that it is a practice which may bare- 
ly be allowed, but which can never be considered as the discharge 
of a moral obligation. 

Kso, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether men use their 
reason, or entirely neglect it. Of course God gave man the power 
to reason, merely that he might use it as a plaything, or neglect 
it at his option, as a matter that has no relation to moral duty! It 
is a shame to insult heaven in this manner; and I think the conclu- 
sion is very clear, that every man in the world, possessing the pow- 
er to reason, is morally bound to exercise it, as he is to read the 
bible, or to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not that eve- 
ry man is bound to learn the artificial rules of logic; but to use his 
thinking powers, to the best advantage, to acquire all useful 
knowledge. Many have reasoned most conclusively, who never 
read a treatise on logic, or who never even heard of such a trea« 
tise: and be it remembered, that '^it is accepted according to that 
a man hath, not according to that he hath not." 

A third duty is that of recollection; or that active exertion of 
the mind which is necessary to impress and retain useful truths in 
the memory. Those who neglect to obtain the knowledge of God, 
and those who neglect to retain God in their knowledge, are alike 
responsible and inexcusable. "Only take heed to thyself, and 
keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine 



408 AN ESSAY ON THE 

eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days 
of thy life." Dent. iv. 9. ''Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye/or- 
get the covenant of the Lord your God." Verse 23. '"The wicked 
shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." 
Psalm ix. 17. 

The fourth and last duty we will mention, as belonging to the 
understanding, is that of canc^or in all our judgments. 

AVithoHt this, all our attention, reasoning and recollection, will 
he unavailing; for prejudice naturally blinds the soul, and hardens 
the mind against conviction. I presume it has done more to ob- 
struct the progress of truth, and to in\t)lve the world in darkness 
and barbarism, than Satan or his emissaries, would be able to do 
without its assistance. Yet many professors of religion have in- 
dulged it without scruple; and narrow -hearted bigotry, accompa- 
nied with a blind and passionate attachment to a party, has too 
often passed lor a becoming firmness to the truth, and a commen- 
dable zeal for tbe Lord God of Hosts. And this bigoted partiality, 
instead of being viewed according to its real nature, as a crime of 
the deepest dye, has been permitted to assume the semblance of 
virtue, or to pass as a matter of indifference that may well accord 
with high attainments in religion. 

The reason this monster has been tolerated, and cordially che- 
rished in the bosom of our churches, I take to be this; we have 
got into the habit of thinking that the support of all truth, and all 
virtue and excellence, depends upon the support of our particular 
parties; and finding bigoted souls among us very warm and zeal- 
ous in the defence of our party, the inference steals upon us im- 
perceptibly, that such a spirit is indispensable, without which our 
cause cannot be defended against the powerful and violent attacks 
of ouropposers. We condemn partiality and bigotry on the other 
side; but who can find in his heart to check its progress, when it 
is warmly engaged in a cause so dear to his own soul? a cause tooy 
on which, in his imagination, the welfare of the universe depends? 
Our party, we imagine, comprehends all truth, purity and excel- 
lence of every kind; while the other party, and all who adhere to 
it, are most wretchedly involved in error and wickedness. If we 
can find no evidence to prove their bad deeds, we will believe 
without evidence; or if their conduct be correct, we will judge 
their motives and designs, and thus impute the deepest crimes to 
them, according to our sovereign pleasure. Mean time our own 
pirlizans are to be believed in every thing they say, without scru-, 
pie and without examination. Our cause is so pure that it is ri^ 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 403 

dieuloas and insufferable for the least suspicion to be indulged 
coneeruingit, or any part of it. It must be defended at every ha- 
zard, and every thing in the world must be made subservient to its 
support aild establishment. The plain English of all this is, that 
our party is the god we are resolved to worship: he is -a god too, 
that is to be supported at the expense of every moral principle: 
If the popularity of our cause can be supported by telling the 
truth, it is very well; but if not, it must be done by falsehood and 
deceit. If it can be supported consistently with justice and the 
general welfare, be it so; but if not, the common dictates of good- 
ness must be neglected, and the rights of opposers must be assail- 
ed by tyranny and persecution. 

But partiality is not the only cause of bias or prepossession 
against the evidence of truth. Our indolence, our passions, and 
the pride of opinioH, often iniluence us to be uncandid, and to love 
darkness rather than light. This uncandid disposition, when long 
indulged, produces an habitual obstinacy that triumphs over the 
dictates of reason and judgment, and thus despoils God's rational 
creatures of that iuteilectual discernment, which was intended 
chiefly to distinguish them from the brute creation. The under- 
standing becomes at length so effectually blinded by prejudice, 
that the miserable soul is brought into a state of slavery, and is 
influenced, as the prophet speaks, to "put bitter for sweet, and 
sweet for bitter; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness." 
Prejudice is a great sin, because it is directly opposite to piety. 
Truth is one of the moral attributes of God: he has given us judg- 
ing faculties, and demands the diligent and candid exercise of 
them, that truth may thereby be understood and enjoyed; there- 
fore he who voluntarily indulges prejudice, opposes the influence 
of truth, and consequently is fighting against one of the moral at- 
tributes of his Maker. 

Prejudice is contrary to justice: it leads us to judge others- 
rashly, whenever they presume to advance any thing contrary to 
our darling opinions: and human character is as often the subject 
of its rash and blind decisions, as any other matter. It produces a 
strong desire to hinder others from enjoying the liberty of opinion, 
and the liberty of speech: and when circumstances admit of it, this 
malevolent desire will break out into actual hostility against these 
native rights of God's intelligent creatures, and will thus do its 
uttermost to suppress the light of evidence, and till the world with 
ignorance and partiality. 



410 AN ESSAY ON THB 

It is contrary to benevolence, and to the common dictates of hu- 
manitj. It rouses up the evil passions, and causes men to become 
enemies to their own parents and children, if they shall presume 
to differ with them in opinion. Thus the father will be against the 
son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daugh- 
ter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law 
against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her 
mother-in-law. And a man*s foes shall be those of his own house- 
hold. 

Thus it appears that prejudice is contrary to reason, conscience, 
and human happiness: it opposes the light of revelation, wages 
war against God, and tramples upon the rights of man: it stifles 
the tender feelings of humanity, sets on fire the course of nature, 
and terminates in vengeance, murder and persecution. 

And yet, alas! it has been prevalent for more than a thousand 
years, even among those who profess to he the genuine followers of 
the meek and lowly, dispassionate and candid, feaviour of man- 
kind. Surely it behooves us all, as candidates for a happy immor- 
tality, to look closely into our own hearts, and see if ihis enemy of 
all righteousness have not a secret iniiueuce upon our judgment 
and passions. Are we willing that every man in the world should 
enjoy the same right of private judgment which we claim for our- 
selves? Or are we angry at a man because he has the assurance to 
think for himself? or because he will not make our party, or our 
favourite leaders, the standard and criterion of all his coueiusions? 
If so, we may flatter ourselves with being high in religious attain- 
ments: but that God who requireth truth in the inward parts, and 
consequently a candid love of truth, will not be deceived hy our 
pretensions, or approbate us, while we harbour in our bosom one 
of the most pernicious principles of moral evil. 



SECTION V. 

Of the right exercise of the affections. 

The proper regulation of the affections is the next great duty of 
christians. "Set your affection on things a,bove, not on things oa 
the earth." Col. iii. 2. 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 411 

This supposes the afteetions to be, in some degree, under the con- 
tirol of our will; for if we had no power over them, we might as 
well be commanded to direct the course of the clouds, as to direct 
the course of our affections. It is true, the spirit of the living God 
quickens and invigorates our affections, and by his reviving in- 
fluence draws them to heavenly things; but this gracious operation 
is intended, not to destroy our power or agency, but to enlarge it: 
"for it is God that worketh in you; — therefore work out your own 
salvation with fear and trembling." 

This loving spirit "reproves the world of sin," and convinces 
iheni of the necessity of righteousness, by impressing on them the 
solemnities of a "judgment to come." He rouses our dull minds 
from their criminal supineness, and points us to things above.— 
He unveils the thunders of Mount Sinai to the guilty soul, and ex- 
cites him to realize the horrors of that hell, for which he is pre- 
paring himself. To the mourner he kindly whispers peace, and 
gently draws him to the bosom of his father and his God, who is 
abundantly propitiated, and cordially reconciled to the humble peni- 
tent, through the intercession of his beloved Son. This spirit i« light 
and joy to the believer, and speaks with an internal voice so com- 
forting and encouraging, that the conscious felicity thence arising, 
is known only to him who becomes the happy subject of it, and 
cannot be adequately expressed in human language. 

But in all these operations our voluntary concurrence is demand- 
ed, and we cannot set our affection on things above without that 
vigorous exertion which is well known to every christian, and 
which constitutes the chief part of his devotion and "piety to 
God." There is a deep propensity in our nature to "mind earthly 
things;" and if a man would be earthly, sensual and devilish, h& 
has nothing to do but to yield himself a passive slave to the "lusts 
of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of this life," which 
will regularly carry him down the current of iniquity into the pit 
of destruction. 

Those on the contrary who would set their affection on 
things above, must become active creatures. They must not 
passively yield to the influence of animal motives, but resist them. 
The flesh lusteth and draweth us down to earth; but the spirit 
draws against it, presents reasonable and spiritual motives to the 
understanding, and calls us up to heaven. If we would follow the 
spirit, we must exert ourselves, because God made us for an ac- 
tive life, and calls our faculties into exercise; but to follow the 
flesh demands no vigorous activity: it is but to yield to the sensual 



412 AN ESSAY ON THE 

cxcifement, and we soon become proScients in iniquity. Laziness 
as naturally tends to moral corruption, as matter gravitates to the 
centre; and it is as vain for a man to expect he will get to heaven 
without active diligence, as it is for the husbandman to expect to 
remove the weeds out of his corn-field by a few fptlitless wishes, 
while he lies prostrate on the earth, oppressed with the most piti- 
ful and passive indolence. 

But let us consider the objects of the good man's affection more 
particularly. 

1. God is the chief object of his esteem, love, hope, joy and con- 
fidence. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul." Wherefore does the christian love God? 
«We love him because he first loved us." That is, we love him 
because of his essential goodness, which has not oiiiy given us 
life, but all things richly to enjoy, not only in this world, but also 
in that which is to come. 

2. He who hates moral excellence cannot love God, and he who 
loves a God of such perfection, loves him because he is thus per- 
fect. This love naturally leads him to take pleasure in seeing the 
divine beneficence diffused abroad, the more extensively the bet- 
ter. It leads him to delight in the exercise of benevolence himself, 
and to encourage and promote it among his fellow-creatures. 

3. He loves God because of his justice, and consequently, he is 
far from wishing his Maker were less strict, or less pure than he 
is. His law only demands the security of universal right, and 
therefore the good man can never consent that it should be altered. 
The God whom he loves sends incorrigible sinners to perdition, 
only when it becomes indispensably necessary to secure the gene- 
ral welfare; therefore he can never consent for God to become 
less severe against offenders than he is, without departing that 
moment from a love of justice. This love influences him to hold 
sacred the universal rights of men, and to take pleasure in doing 
unto all men as he would they should do unto him. It influences 
him to render unto all their due, and to set his face as a flint 
against the mean conduct of sinners, who, setting justice at defi- 
ance, violate the rights of their Maker by impiety and idolatry; 
the rights of men, by lying and fraud; and the rights of women 
and children by the dark and infernal arts of seduction. 

4. He loves God because he is true: consequently he is diligent 
in the pursuit of truth, sincere in the communication of it, and 
candid in all his judgments. Kis language and external deport- 
ment always correspond with the meaning of his heart; he abhors 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 413 

all lying and dissimulation, and is ^<an Israelite indeed in whom 
there is no guile." 

4. If he loves God because of his being possessed of such per- 
fections, then he loves all good men, for the same reason. Wher- 
ever he sees benevolence, justice and truth prevail in any creature, 
he loves that creature for his adherence to these principles. As 
God is infinitely perfect, he loves him with supreme affection, 
and loves with a subordinate affection, every creature in propor- 
tion as it resembles God. Consequently, "with him a vile person 
is contemned; but he honours them that fear the Lord." His 
soul is delighted with the company of good men, and he says with 
the blessed Redeemer, "whosoever doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mo- 
ther." Of course he takes pleasure in frequenting the assemblies 
of the righteous, and his glad heart cries out with ecstacy, "how 
amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord God of hosts! One thirig 
have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that i may 
dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold 
the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple." Psalm 
xxvii. 4. 

5, When it is said religion consists in love, it is to be careful- 
ly observed, that this love is to influence all the faculties of our 
nature. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy 
strength.^^ Mark xii. 30. 

Perhaps no better comment can be given upon this passage, than 
the comment given by Dr. Watts. "God must be loved with all 
the mind, that is, he must stand highest in the esteem of the judg- 
ment. He must be loved with all the soul, that is, with the strong- 
est attachment of the will to hira: He must be loved with all the 
heart, that is, with the warmest and sincerest aft'ection: And he 
must be loved with all the strength, that is, this love must be man- 
ifested by the utmost exercise and activity of all the inferior pow- 
ers." Discourses on the love of God, page 10, H. 

When this love has a perfect and uniform influence over the 
human mind, it leads to an undeviating conformity to moral rec- 
titude in the exercise of all our intellectual faculties, attections, 
and bodily members. This is christian perfection. Gracious 
Redeemer! when shall this pure and heavenly virtue prevail among 
mankind? Alas! Millions are so far from following after it, that it 
is an object of their greatest contempt and detestation. Tiiey pur- 
sue it with witticism, ridicule^ slander, passion and revenge. They 
30 



414 AN ESSAY ON THE 

despise goodness and do their uttermost to make all their acqtiain- 
tances ashamed of it; and were they not restrained by the civil 
law, they would gratify their enmity against God, by putting good 
men to death, by the most excruciating tortures that malicious in- 
genuity can devise. History proves this melancholy truth; and 
human nature remains the same it was in the days of Nero or 
bishop Bonner. 

But while we lament and mourn for the general wickedness of 
mankind, let us not forget to bewail our own folly, and to confess 
the innumerable sins of religio s people. Were we ail ef one heart 
andof onesojil, possessing "the meekness andgentlenessof Christ," 
we should be terrible as an army with banners: but are there not 
many evils prevailing among christians, and even among the min- 
isters of Jesus Christ.^ How much ignorance prevails among us, 
through a voluntary neglect of the means of knowledge.^ How 
much self-iRduigence, formality, and devotion to earthly things? 
How much prejudice, rash judging, fiery zeal, and party bigotry? 
Are not many of us '•desirous of vain giory, provoking one another, 
envying one another?" Have we not sometimes a stronger desire 
for popularity, than for the glory of Grod and the salvation of 
mankind? Alas, my brethren, 1 fear we are not able to an wer these 
questions in the negative. "The mystery of iniquity doth already 
work;" corruption is working its way into the heart of our church- 
es, and a little of "the old leaven of malice and wickedness," un- 
less it be speedily removed away from us, will ultimately "leaven 
the whole lump." 

We shall never be a wise, a holy, and a happy people, till we 
heartily agree in these four general rules of conduct. 

First, to lay aside all indolence, prejudice and bigotry, and 
unite our efforts to improve and enlarge our knowledge of truth, 
by a diligent and candid exercise of all our intellectual faculties. 
Secondly, to sacrifice all sensual gratifications that are inconsis- 
tent with pure and undefiled religion, give up all confidence in 
mere Ibrmality or speculation, and set our affection on things 
above. 

Thirdly, to lay aside all ridiculous and blind devotion to names, 
parties, ceremonies, and the thirst of applause, and maintain a 
perpetual and sacred regard to the glory of God, the general 
good of his creatures, and oar own eternal salvation. 

Fourthly, to lay aside the fear of man, the love of custom, 
tlie dread of singularity, and regulate all our external conduct, 
not according to the fashion, the general opinion, or the decisions 



PLAN OF SALVATION. 415 

of the great and the honourable; but according to the pure and 
immutable dictates of truth, justice and benevolence, as mc may 
find them stated in the oracles of God, and confirmed by the intui- 
tive convictions of an enlightened conscience. 
While we foolishly set one part of christian righteousness against 
another, we are w eakening each other's hands, and wounding the 
sacred cause of the Redeemer under pretence of supporting it. 

He that devotes his whole attention to the intellectual powers, 
to the neglect of his affections, is sure to fall into a dry specula- 
tive formality, or stoicism; a kind of external morality that has 
no soul. And he that attends entirely to the affections, to the ne- 
glect of the understanding, is sure to fall into a fiery, supersti- 
tious enthusiasm, something like the frenzy of Moses' disciples 
when "they cast dust into the air;" or like those of the heathen 
goddess, "who lor about the space of two hours, cried great is 
Diana of the Ephesians." 

The harmony of the understanding and the affections, is essen- 
tial to the perfect enjoyment and practice of genuine Christianity. 
The enlargement of know ledge furnishes motives to influence the 
will and affections; expands our views of the glory of God shining 
in the face of Jesus Christ, and enables us to give an answ er to 
every one that asketh us for a reason of the hope that is in us.— 
The lively exercise of the affections invigorates the operations of 
the understandiug, puts life into all our acts of devotion, and 
leads to a most cordial and happy union with God. Pious affec- 
tions may well be considered as the wings of the soul, by which 
we rise above the influence of sublunary things, and lay up our 
treasure in heaven. The understanding may with equal proprie- 
ty be considered as eyes to the soul, w hich are necessary to point 
the course of the affections, and direct them in their flight. 

This harmony of our intellectual and active powers is necessary 
to regulate our conduct, and to regulate our zeal. If they be not 
united in their operations our conduct w ill be partial and incom- 
plete, and our zeal w ill either be deficient in energy, or wild and 
fiery in its course. Zeal is commonly considered as a proof of 
piety, and indeed there can be no better evidence of it, w hile that 
zeal rises from candor and humble love; but a zeal arising from 
superstition and prejudice is so far from being a proof of piety that 
it is a very evident proof of the want of it. "A zeal for God" that 
"is not according to knowledge," is productive of very danger- 
ous eftects; how much more when the zeal is not for God, but for 
some favorite party, opinion or ceremony.^ It is the very thing that 



416 AN ESSAY ON THE, &c. 

has led to the most bloody persecutions that ever disgraced the 
christian or the heathen world; and we have cause to be very jeal- 
ous of the first motions of a zeal that works by anger, is nourish- 
ed by ignorance, and is founded on an implicit devotion to a party* 
But that soul whose zeal is regulated by an enlightened under- 
standing; nourished by a calm, dispassionate love of truth; and 
founded upon a firm adherence to the moral attributes of God, is a 
plant of our heavenly Father's right hand planting, and shall be 
useful and happy here, and inherit eternal life hereafter. Being 
delivered from the dark shades of ignorance, the contracting influ- 
ence of partiality, and the tyrannical ascendency of appetite or 
worldly grandeur, the mind is free to think, and judge, and exercise 
its pious affections without obstruction, in which consists "the 
glorious liberty of the children of God." Free from the pitiful 
shackles of bigotry, such a soul enjoys a most pleasant and revi- 
ving range through all the wonders of Redeeming love. The attri- 
butes, and works, and providence, and grace of God, afford abun- 
dant matter for his pious meditations; His active mind travels 
through the beauties of creation, and adores that beneficent 
hand which sends us rain from heaven, and filla our hearts with 
food and gladness. He turns to the pages of revelation, explores 
the opening beauties of the moral law, surveys the wonderful 
goodness of God manifested in the flesh; then rises on the wings of 
contemplation, with ecstacy of thought, to those salubrious re- 
gions of inettkble tranquillity, "where momentary ages are no 
more."HissouladherestoGod,asto the centre of all its desires. He 
finds no pleasure in existence equal to that of doing good. He 
looks over the face of the earth, with conscious friendship for 
every living creature. He mourns over the ignorance and wicked- 
ness of men, and melts into sympathetic tears, for the miseries of 
Adam's children. His enlarged and generous mind embraces the 
different nations of the earth with affection, and with conscious 
sincerity, beseeches heaven to bless all his brethren of the human 
race. May that great and good Being who holds the destinies of 
creation in his right hand, inspire us with these sentiments and 
affections! May his benign influences subdue the savage disposi- 
tions of our nature, and inspire the heart of man, with brotherly 
love to man! May his truth shine and enlighten the nations, his 
spirit reform them, and his goodness save them from the bitter 
pains of the sepond death! "to God only wise, be glory through 
Jesus Christ forever," Amen. 

FINIS. 



CONTENTS. 



Page 
INTRODUCTION, - - - - - v 

CHAPTER I. 

UPON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH 
WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE- 
HOOD. 

Sect. I. A general view of truth and evidence, - - 11 
Sect. II. Concerning the several sources of our knowledge, 

and first, of those principles which are self-evident, - 16 

Sect. III. Two objections answered, - - - 3T 

Sect. IV. Of the evidence of reason, - - - 40 

Sect. V. Of the evidence of revelation, - - 5* 
Sect. VI. The connexion between those three sources 

of evidence, and their dependence upon each other, - 66 

Sect. VII. Of analogy and presumption, - - 90 

Sect. VIII. Four defective rules of judgment examined, - 101 
Sect. IX. The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of 

truth, ------ 113 

Sect. X. The necessity and safety of a diligent communica- 
tion of truth, ------ 120 

-Sect. XI. Whether certain errors ought to be believed for the 

sake of discouraging sin^ - - - - 4S7 

CHAPTER n. 

UPON THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION. 

Sect. L A view of the Divine Attributes, - - - 133 

Sect. II. Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of 
his creatures; therefore his displeasure against it must 
be manifested, . - . - - 147 

Sect. III. The attributes of God were glorified in the redemp- 
tion of the world, by our Lord Jesus Christ, - - i.52 



CONTENTS, 

Sect. IV. An examination oftwo opposite prejudices, founded 

upon mystery, _ . - - - lei 

Sect, V. The doctrine of redemption stated in the words of 
several respectable authors, - - - - 171 

Sect. VI. The testimony of eminent Calvinislic Divines, 178 

CHAPTER III. 

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE 
OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. 

Sect. I. A brief view of the nature of forgiveness, - 186 

Sect. II. The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in 

their relation to each other, . - , 194 

Sect. III. An objection answered, - - _ 200 

Sect. IV. The fitness, importance and necessity of redemp- 
tion, --->.- 203 
Sect. V. The same subject, - - - - 211 
Sect. VI. The same subject, - - - - 218 
Sect. VII The same subject, - - - - 232 
Sect. VIII. The two systems of redemption, tested by the na- 
tive consequences which flow from them, - 239 
Sect. IX. Our system harmonizes the doctrines and clears up 

many diSicult passages of revelation, - - 248 

Sect. X. The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemp- 
tion, reconciled with the metaphors which represent it 
as a purchase, . _ - - ^ 25ft 

CHAPTER IV. 

AN EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS CONNECTED 
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION. 

jSecf. I. Of the full display of eternal justice, - - 267 

Sect. II. The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption 

necessary, - - _ - - 275 

Sect. III. The supposed violation of truth, - - 279 

Sect. IV. Moral principles in the Deity are not different from 

those which are to govern his creatures, - - 283 

Sect. V. The infinity of Christ's atoneuient considered, - 290 
Sect. VI. A statement of the doctrine of original sin, in reply 

to the charge, that our system denies it, - - 294{ 



CONTENTS. 

Sect. VII. A view of the principal arguments by which infant 

guilt is defended, - - - - - 806 

Sect. VIII. Infants are not guilty on account of their natural 

passions, or propensities to evil, - - - 319 

Sect. IX. Of man's natural inability to do good, - - 327 
Sect. X. A consequence of the doctrine established in the 
foregoing sections, that death is necessary in the case of 
infants, but is not a penalty, - - . 334, 

Sect. XI. Second consequence, - - _ - 350 

Sect. XII. Of the Divine Sovereignty, . - - 359 

Sect. XIII. The same subject, - - - - 365 

CHAPTER V. 

OF THE MEANS OR CONDITIONS THROUGH WHICH WE RECEIVE 
THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST's ATONEMENT. 

Sect. T. A general view of faith, - - - 373 
Sect. II. Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justifi- 
cation, _-..-. 381 
Sect. III. Whether faith depends upon the will, - 393 
Sect. IV. Of the right exercise of the understanding, - 402 
Sect. V. Of the right exercise of the affections, - - 410 



ERRATA. 



Page 68, line 16, after the word that read it. 

Page 77, line 17, for reasonable read reasoning. 

Page 80, line 40, for represent read represents. 

Page 81, line 30, for conclusion rasid conclusions. 

Page 83, line 18, omit the word that. 

Page 95, line 27, for the word was read were. 

Page 99, line 17, for has read have. 

Page 100, line 38, for then read than. 

Page 157, line 37, omit the word and. 

Page 245, line 15, for christian read christian's. 

Page 246, line 8, for Zyon read Zion. 

Page 254, line 30, for where read were. 

Page 299. line 38, for not read nor. 

Page 383, line 31, for genuing read genuine. 

N. B. Many particular or emphatical sentences, which were 
intended to be put in italicks, have been (by mistake) enclosed in 
commas as quotations. 



i 



RDl9 



<<y c " « • <^ 







%* Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 



• •- A^^^ , % '"' .> . . . 

•i J. t • ""J^"* *-* -} -^r <^ ^j^nT ^ f * Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

'T^ ^ ^J^^l^^ ■*■ ^ ^'^^^Slllk' Treatment Date: August 2005 

^Hq. *^^^Co* vOv* '^^^^S- PreservationTechnologies (^ 

^ ** «ft^l)^^^ " '^ * '^^^^yl^B* *" WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

y *>-j ***.^^^o* n*^ ^ *«r^^,* 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

»/* o N o «V; ^ # , t - CranberryTownship, PA 16066 

t*i<0S%L* ^ A*^ „«•«* %^ V (724)779-2111 









/ .'if^M^ %..^'' /Jitev \./ .'^\ %.^' 




.^^^'V, 










,^^ 







■ ™^; ^/V ■•.»• ,*^'->. --.m- ./^ 



J."-^* 










^^ « ''" 





'i..^^ 



..,.'^-^ .':(<»^'. %,** .-^'v \/ .-m"-. %.^^ 








# . ■« • 



a DOBBS BROS. 

J LIBRARY BINOINQ 



lAR 82. o« 

! ST.J\UGUSTINE ' R<» 
FLA. 






^^32084 •• f^ (> ^0^ • " • o* **;> V ♦ !»!oIL'* 



